Preamble

The House met at a Quarter past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

WEAVER NAVIGATION BILL

Read the Third time, and passed.

WADEBRIDGE RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL

Standing Orders 86, 179 and 180 suspended; Bill, as amended, to be considered forthwith, amended prints having previously been deposited.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Bill accordingly considered; Standing Order 205 suspended; Bill to be read the Third time forthwith [The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Provisional Order Bill.

Read the Third time, and passed.

PARLIAMENTARY CONSTITUENCIES (ELECTORS) (SCOTLAND)

Address for Return,
showing, with regard to each Parliamentary Constituency in Scotland, the total number of electors on the register now in force."—[Mr. Allan Chapman.]

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRIAL MAN-POWER

Laundry Industry

Mr. Cocks: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the shortage of labour in the laundry industry; and

whether he has considered releasing some of the workers now being retained in munition and other factories with little or no work to relieve this situation.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Butler): I am aware of this shortage, which exists in many other industries also. The highest priority has been given to the most urgent of the demands. Suitable labour which can be made available from factories and elsewhere will be used to relieve the shortage.

Mr. Cocks: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that some labour supplied to this industry during the Election might possibly result in having less dirty linen to wash?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that the industry itself needs drastic overhauling? Charges have gone up excessively and there is no delivery at all.

Directed Mine Workers (Release)

Mr. Cocks: asked the Minister of Labour, in view of the fact that boys directed to the mines are to be released on the same group principle as men in the Services, whether they will also be granted on demobilisation eight weeks' pay, gratuity according to service and a civilian kit.

Mr. Butler: No, Sir.

Mr. Cocks: Will the right hon. Gentleman extend a little of his renowned sympathy to these boys; and will he reconsider the question?

Mr. Butler: I regret that my answer must remain "No, Sir," although I have every sympathy with the boys.

Building and Civil Engineering Trades

Mr. R. J. Taylor: asked the Minister of Labour what are the conditions associated with the registration of building trade workers at present employed in munition works; whether it is intended to direct such labour after registration; and, if so, what are the conditions associated with such direction.

Mr. Butler: The workers required to register on 16th June are men between the ages of 18 and 60 who have had a total period of 12 months' employment in the building or civil engineering industry since January, 1935, and are now employed elsewhere. I have every hope


that experienced workers will welcome this opportunity of returning to the building and civil engineering industries for work in connection with housing and other essential construction. In some cases, however, it may be necessary in the last resort to direct such men to essential work of the highest urgency. If this is done there will be the usual right of appeal on grounds of hardship.

Viscountess Astor: As there are thousands of women working on munitions, will they be allowed to go into the building trade?

Mr. Butler: This is a particular Question referring to the registration of previous building workers. Unless they were covered by that definition they would not be included in this plan.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: May we take it that the changes visualised will not abrogate the terms of the recent Statutory Rule and Order dealing with the release of men over 51?

Mr. Butler: I think we must observe the Orders of which the House has cognisance.

Mr. Graham White: asked the Minister of Labour whether the arrangements for registration of former workers in the building and civil engineering industries will apply also to similar workers serving in the Forces.

Mr. Butler: No, Sir, the pre-enlistment occupation of building trade workers in the Forces is already recorded in their Service documents.

Oral Answers to Questions — DOMESTIC SERVICE (HOLIDAY RESORTS)

Mr. Spearman: asked the Minister of Labour what steps he is taking to enable holiday facilities to be provided by those seaside resorts whose labour is still being directed to other towns.

Mr. Butler: Unless the circumstances are very exceptional workers are not now being directed away from seaside resorts. The great shortage of domestic workers has made it necessary to give the highest priority to hospitals and similar institutions, where there are many unfilled vacancies, but I am arranging that, sub-

ject to the requirements of these priorities and war production, women may take up work in hotels and boarding houses at holiday resorts.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOSPITALS (STAFFS)

Earl Winterton: asked the Minister of Labour in view of the continued shortage of both nurses and domestic servants in municipal and voluntary hospitals, what steps are being taken to increase the number of persons available for each of these categories of hospital workers in the next few months.

Mr. Butler: I am taking every step in my power in consultation with the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland. For nurses, these steps include arrangements for release from civilian work of practically all volunteers for nursing, and the arrangement for special releases from the Services of certain men and women volunteers with experience of nursing. We are also making extensive use of publicity by means of specially prepared booklets, films and advertisements. The special facilities of Appointments Offices and of the Employment Exchange Service will continue to bring full knowledge of the opportunities in nursing before suitable men and women. On the steps taken to assist hospitals to obtain domestic workers, I would refer my right hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. and gallant Member for Wellingborough (Sir A. James) on 7th December, 1944, a copy of which I am sending to him. I propose, in addition, to give further publicity to these needs.

Earl Winterton: May I, as chairman of a hospital, ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware that the answer to which he alluded refers to a state of affairs which has become worse instead of better? At present a number of nurses are having to perform domestic duties. Is there not need for a drastic overhaul of the policy of his predecessor in the matter?

Mr. Butler: The answer referred chiefly to domestic work in hospitals. In the case of nurses there is some information which I have given my Noble Friend, which he will no doubt study, but in general I cannot say how difficult I think the position is and how much I intend to do my best to help it.

Dr. Edith Summerskill: Do the plans include an increase in the rate of pay for nurses?

Mr. Butler: I must have another Question on that.

Miss Rathbone: Is any kind of domestic help available, other than that under the scheme started by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, for women with children, and women doctors, who badly need service in their own homes?

Mr. Butler: Although this raises a rather wider subject, there has been a recent report on it, and it is one aspect of the matter to which we are giving consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — RESETTLEMENT (TRAINING ALLOWANCES)

Mr. David Eccles: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is yet in a position to announce the rates of training allowances proposed under his Ministry's resettlement training schemes.

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. The last Government announced its intention of providing training allowances which, while higher than unemployment benefit would not be higher than the general run of wages likely to be received in the first employment after training. A scale of allowances in conformity with that policy has been settled, and I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate a full statement giving the figures in the Official Report. In comparing the rates with rates of wages, it should be noted that wages are subject to deductions for Income Tax and insurance contributions.

Mr. Eccles: Are the allowances also payable to wives of men undergoing training; and has industry agreed to the scale?

Mr. Butler: These matters have been discussed with representatives of industry. My hon. Friend will see in the note attached to the statement that there is definite provision for wives.

Following is the statement:

Training Allowances

The following scale of training allowances will be introduced at an early date and will apply to all men and women in training under the resettlement training schemes of the Ministry of Labour and National Service (other than

the Further Education and Training Schemes, for which the rates of allowances have already been announced).

(a) Trainees living at home:

Age.
Weekly rate.


Men and boys.
Women and girls.



s.
d.
s.
d.


20 and over
60
0
47
0


19
47
6
41
0


18
37
6
33
0


17
30
0
27
0


16
27
0
25
0

(b) Trainees living away from home:

In this case the allowances are in addition to payment of the cost of lodgings (normally not exceeding 30s.)


Age.
Weekly rate.


Men and boys.
Women and girls.



s.
d.
s.
d.


20 and over
35
0
25
0


19
25
0
20
0


18
19
0
17
0


17
17
0
15
0


16
15
0
15
0

NOTE

(1) The rate is increased by 10s. a week in respect of a wife or, in certain circumstances, other adult dependant, and by 5s. a week in respect of the first child under 16 years of age.

(2) A trainee in training away from his home area who continues to maintain his former home may receive an additional allowance of 24s. 6d. per week.

(3) Daily travelling expenses are paid if the daily journey is over two miles each way subject to relaxation as necessary in the case of disabled persons.

(4) 5s. a week is deducted if a mid-day meal is provided free at the training centre.

DEMOBILISATION

Release Groups

Mr. Lipson: asked the Minister of Labour if men who served both in the last war and in this can have their service in the former taken into account in the determination of their release group.

Mr. Butler: No, Sir.

Mr. Lipson: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that this war is a continuation of the first world war and, as these


men are often on low medical category, and have important business matters to attend to, could he not give further consideration to my Question?

Mr. Butler: I am afraid not. It is really impossible of application.

Category B (Pay)

Commander Prior: asked the Minister of Labour why men in Category B for demobilisation are granted 21 days' pay in view of the Government's policy that all men honourably discharged were to be given 56 days' pay.

Mr. Butler: As stated in the White Paper, it is essential to the scheme that there should be a clearly marked difference in the treatment of the men released in Class A in their turn, and of the men released in Class B out of their turn. The latter will have definite employment to which to go, whereas men released in Class A must be given time for resettlement and to secure suitable employment if necessary.

GENERAL ELECTION

Sick Persons

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take all possible steps, by legislation or regulation, to enable hospital patients and other sick persons to record their votes at the coming General Election.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Donald Somervell): The Speaker's Conference recommended that persons physically incapacitated shall be allowed to vote by post at a Parliamentary election. It is impossible in the time available to pass the legislation which would be necessary for this and other recommendations of the Speaker's Conference.

Mr. Driberg: Would it be possible in the large hospitals and sanatoria, where patients remain for a very long time, to have polling booths at the hospitals themselves so that at least walking patients could vote?

Sir D. Somervell: I am afraid that would be impossible. We cannot make alterations at this stage.

Sir Percy Harris: Would it be possible to arrange for transport facilities to take people to the polling booths from hospitals?

Sir D. Somervell: Of course, transport facilities can be arranged under the existing procedure, but I do not think the State could do that.

Sir Herbert Williams: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman give an explanation why the late Government were so dilatory in bringing before Parliament the quite elementary Bill which would have been necessary to deal with matters recommended by the Speaker's Conference?

Sir D. Somervell: No, I do not think I could give an explanation.

Bomb Damage Repair Workers

Mr. Lipson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what provision he has made to enable the large number of men engaged in the building trade who have been directed to bomb-damage repair work in London, to record their votes in the constituencies where their homes are.

Sir D. Somervell: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to a similar question by the hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil) on 6th June.

BOARDED-0UT CHILDREN (SUPERVISION)

Mr. Arthur Duckworth: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he proposes to take upon the conclusions and recommendations contained in Sir Walter Monckton's Report upon the circumstances leading to the death of Dennis O'Neill; and whether he has any statement to make.

Sir D. Somervell: The circumstances leading up to this tragic affair are clearly described in the Report which is now in the hands of hon. Members, and it is unnecessary for me to summarise the conclusions at which Sir Walter Monckton arrived. It is evident that the arrangements made by the two local authorities for the care of the boys concerned were seriously defective, but it is only fair to add that Sir Walter Monckton says:


I have felt bound to offer frank criticism of the two local authorities principally concerned. But it would be unjust not to recall that they asked for the public inquiry which you directed me to conduct and that in the course of it they put before me all relevant material with complete candour, whether it tended to excuse or implicate them, and thereby lightened a difficult task.
The Newport education authority has sent me a communication showing that after considering the report of the inquiry they have resolved on measures for strengthening their administrative arrangements, and I have no doubt that both the local authorities concerned with this distressing case will take all steps that are humanly possible to prevent any similar occurrence in the future and also that other local authorities will examine their procedure with the same object in view.
As the Home Office and the Ministry of Health are both concerned with the boarding out of children by local authorities, I have been in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health on the question of what can be done to improve the existing procedure, to bring home to all local authorities the importance of complying strictly with all the requirements for the protection of children and to ensure that the work of selecting foster parents and supervising the welfare of children who have been boarded out shall be in the hands of experienced and competent workers. Our Departments are reviewing jointly the existing regulations and instructions, and we propose, before issuing fresh instructions or advice, to call into consultation some representatives of local authorities so that a careful examination may be made of the whole subject with a view to securing that the machinery both of the central Government Departments and of the local authorities shall be as effective as possible for safeguarding children who are boarded out, and for preventing abuse of this valuable method of dealing with homeless children.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: Will my right hon. and learned Friend also bear in mind that the Ministry of Education have certain responsibilities in this matter, and will he also include them in the general review?

Sir D. Somervell: Of course, the education authorities are very much concerned. I will bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Sir Joseph Lamb: Am I to understand that my right hon. and learned Friend informed us that this matter is under immediate consideration by the local authorities at his request, and that not only his Department but the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Education are looking into the matter?

Sir D. Somervell: I think that is the effect of my answer.

Sir H. Williams: May we have an assurance that only one Department is to be in charge, since all these troubles arise because a lot of Departments are in charge and none is really responsible?

CIGARETTES AND JEWELLERY THEFT

The following Question stood on the Order Paper in the name of Mr. Thorne:

18. To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can give any information about 70 cases containing 2,000,000 cigarettes and jewellery worth £15,000 stolen from a house in Finchley; and if anyone has yet been arrested for the crime.

Mr. Thorne: In putting this Question, may I be allowed to thank you, Mr. Speaker, and previous Speakers for the many courtesies I have received during the 38 years I have been a Member of the House? I would like also to thank the Clerks at the Table for similar courtesies.

Sir D. Somervell: I think the right hon. Member must have in mind two quite separate incidents. On the afternoon of 3rd June, a house in Finchley was entered and jewellery was stolen of an estimated value of £14,000. Some furs and a safe containing documents and £3,000 in cash were also stolen. On the night of 5th–6th June, four men attacked the watchman at a warehouse in Watford and tied him up. They then removed over 2,500,000 cigarettes, to the value of £11,000, in a lorry. Inquiries are being vigorously pursued by the police in both cases, but no arrests have yet been made.

Mr. Montague: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say what 2,000,000 cigarettes were doing in a house at Finchley?

Sir D. Somervell: They were in a warehouse in Watford.

Mr. Thorne: When the right hon. and learned Gentleman gets definite information, will he be good enough to send it to me?

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Arthur Heneage: Are not many of the thefts that are happening all over the place due to the fact that the police are understaffed and many of them too old?

Sir D. Somervell: The demands that have been made on the police and those who have joined the police forces have been very great indeed, and the police have had great difficulties to meet. I fully agree with my hon. and gallant Friend that the question of recruiting-younger men to the police forces is very important, and it is a matter which we have under very active consideration.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: Are not investments in jewellery a means of escaping payment of Income Tax?

Mr. Pritt: Is it not a fact that this is no more than a crude development of uncontrolled private enterprise?

PART-TIME POLICE (RELEASE)

Sir J. Lamb: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether part-time special constables and other part-time police auxiliaries can now be released from the war-time restrictions on their freedom to resign.

Sir D. Somervell: Yes, Sir. I am glad to say that the war-time restrictions on the liberty to resign of part-time special constables and part-time members of the Women's Auxiliary Police Corps and the police auxiliary messenger service will come to an end on the 1st July. This does not mean that there will be no further need for the help of special constables. Such help will still be wanted, and I am confident that many of them will be willing to maintain their association with the police service on the traditional voluntary basis. I feel sure the House will wish me to express our appreciation of the loyal and devoted service rendered by the special constabulary and the other part-time members of the police service throughout the war.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Will this apply to all women who have resigned and who

were born after 1916, bearing in mind that there is still a rigid form of control applying to such persons, I believe whether they are married or unmarried, although I am not sure in the latter case?

Sir D. Somervell: I am not sure that I quite follow the hon. Member. This applies to part-time special constables, and to part-time members of the Women's Auxiliary Police Corps and the Police Auxiliary Messenger Service.

EDUCATION

Industrial Psychology

Major Procter: asked the Minister of Education if his Department will prepare and supply to headmasters and head mistresses apparatus and instructions on how to apply the methods of industrial psychology to children of school-leaving age and so help such children to make a right choice of their careers.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mrs. Cazalet Keir): The problem of ensuring that children make a right choice of their careers is at present being examined by a committee of industrialists and educationalists under the chairmanship of the Secretary of the Ministry of Labour and National Service. I would suggest that my hon. and gallant Friend awaits the publication of the report of this committee which is expected shortly.

Sir P. Harris: Is it proposed that teachers should be associated in this, since they have a greater knowledge of the psychology of children even than industrialists?

Mrs. Keir: I think that if the right hon. Baronet sees the names of the members of the Committee, which I will show him afterwards, he will be satisfied on that point.

Major Procter: Is the hon. Lady in a position to say that her Department is determined not to let elementary schools be in a worse position than American schools of the same type?

Children's Travelling Expenses

Sir Percy Harris: asked the Minister of Education whether anything more can be done towards paying travelling expenses when children live a long way


from their denominational or other suitable schools; and whether these facilities will be made as wide as possible.

Mrs. Cazalet Keir: Administrative Memorandum No. 63 issued on 1st June, of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy, has explained fully to local education authorities their duties and powers in this matter under Section 55 of the Education Act, 1944.

Sir P. Harris: Is the hon. Lady aware that many local authorities have strictly limited the distance which children can travel on free transport, which in many cases has resulted in their going to a school which the parents do not desire—I refer to denominational schools? Will she look into the matter?

Mrs. Keir: I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that it is important that the arrangements made under Section 55 (1) should be in harmony with Section 76 of the Act.

Mr. Ede: Will the hon. Lady undertake to see that the development plans are examined to ensure that the provisions specified in Section 55 are clearly set out and are generous?

Mrs. Keir: Yes, Sir.

Major Sir George Davies: Is the hon. Lady aware that in many districts in the country, children just a few months over five years old are expected to walk long distances to get to school because it is inside a certain restricted area; and as in many cases those lines of approach have been widened right up to the banks on either side and there are buses and so forth travelling along those roads, such children are in imminent danger? Is there no possibility of my hon. Friend making provision to have those restrictions modified?

Teachers (Release)

Mr. Glenvil Hall: asked the Minister of Education the procedure education authorities must follow in order to obtain the release of teachers under Class B of the Re-allocation of Manpower Scheme.

Mrs. Keir: The arrangements which have been made for the release of teachers under Class B of the Re-allocation of Manpower Scheme have been explained to local education authorities in Administrative

Memorandum No. 64 issued on 6th June, a copy of which I am sending the hon. Member.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Is the hon. Lady aware that this is a complete reversal of the policy which was in force up to a week ago, and that local authorities hardly know where they are with it? Would her Department be willing to let local authorities write in about names which they are anxious to have?

Mrs. Keir: I think that local authorities would be entitled to write to the Ministry and we would look into the cases.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: Have not some local authorities been advised that they should not ask for individual teachers, and is it not most important that they should go to the right schools?

Mrs. Keir: I think local education authorities or governors of schools who are interested in the early release of a particular teacher should make sure that he is on the list of teachers identified by the Ministry.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: In view of the obvious confusion on this issue, would the hon. Lady in the course of the next few weeks go into this matter?

Mr. Ede: Would the hon. Lady go back to the sensible arrangement we had before she took office?

PUBLIC HEALTH

Piped Water Supplies, Essex

Mr. Driberg: asked the Minister of Health how many houses in the county of Essex and in the Maldon division of Essex, respectively, are without a piped water supply.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Willink): According to the information supplied by the rural district councils concerned, the number of houses without a piped water supply in the rural districts of Essex is 22,315, of which 3,258 are in the Maldon Parliamentary division.

Maternity Cases (Accommodation, Worcestershire)

Sir John Wardlaw-Milne: asked the Minister of Health what progress has been made in the county of Worcester, particularly in the Redditch and Bromsgrove areas, in the last 12 months in the provision for maternity cases; and whether he


will give the number of beds now available for women who cannot have their babies at home owing to unsuitable conditions, as compared with the position a year ago.

Mr. Willink: According to the annual returns made by the welfare authorities, there were on 31st December, 1943, 46 maternity beds in institutions owned by local authorities in Worcestershire and 20 in voluntary institutions. The corresponding figures on 31st December, 1944, were 87 and 20. In addition, the County Council are at present using a former Emergency Maternity Home, which provided 18 emergency maternity beds, as an annexe to one of their own institutions, and have also made arrangements to send cases to another former Emergency Maternity Home, now returned to its former owners, which provided 33 emergency maternity beds.

Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne: May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend whether he is aware of the extreme hardship caused to mothers in the towns named and by the distances which it is necessary at present to convey them by ambulances or otherwise? Is there anything he can do to provide further homes for these cases?

Mr. Willink: The distances between the additional groups of beds which I have mentioned—and which together amount to quite a substantial number—and the towns to which my hon. Friend has referred are not very great. I should not think it right to promise the building or equipping of additional maternity homes at a very early date, and I am afraid that expectant mothers must at present be prepared to go 10, 15 or even 20 miles for their accommodation.

Hospitals (Staffing)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Health whether he has ascertained, or will ascertain, from public hospitals when and where there is acute understaffing, with a view to relief being secured from other hospitals, including military hospitals where there is temporary overstating.

Mr. Willink: Yes, Sir. This is my regular practice and that of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service, with whom my Department works in close collaboration on these matters.

Mr. Sorensen: Could the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether many nurses have been transferred from military hospitals to civil hospitals? Is he aware that nursing staffs in many hospitals are breaking down under the strain, and that some wards have had to be closed?

Mr. Willink: We all know there is a serious shortage of nurses and domestic staffs, but with regard to the point put to me, we have for some time had arrangements for the transfer on loan of both nurses and medical officers from the medical services of the Armed Forces.

Mr. Sorensen: Can the Minister say how many?

Mr. Willink: No, Sir.

Blood Transfusion Service

Major Kimball: asked the Minister of Health whether he is able to make any statement about the future of the blood transfusion services organised during the war in connection with the emergency hospital scheme.

Mr. Willink: Yes, Sir. Although demands have naturally fallen with the end of the German war, the emergency blood transfusion service must be kept in being for some time to meet the needs of the Service and civilian patients for whom it is being used. When the emergency is over, it is intended to provide a blood transfusion service on a permanent basis; and any necessary changes in organisation consequent upon the transition from war to peace are now being considered in detail.

Returned Prisoners of War (Hospital Diet)

Mr. Graham White: asked the Minister of Health if he is satisfied that the diet of returned prisoners of war undergoing treatment for tuberculosis in civil hospitals is in all respects equal to that given in military hospitals.

Mr. Willink: Civilian tuberculosis institutions provide the ordinary civilian diet with the addition of two pints of milk daily. I have not the detailed information on which to base the comparison asked for by the right hon. Member but I am making inquiries.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES, MERSEYSIDE

Mr. Kirby: asked the Minister of Health whether he is now in a position to make a statement as to the setting up of a commission of inquiry on the co-ordination of the overlapping local government ser vices on Merseyside.

Mr. Willink: The Government are not at the present time proposing to set up any such Commission.

Mr. Kirby: Is the right lion, and learned Gentleman aware that before this war started over five years ago, it was stated that this would be done and that some co ordination of services on Merseyside should take place; and would the right hon. and learned Gentleman give a more informative answer than the one which he has just given?

Mr. Willink: I am afraid I am not aware of what was said in this matter five years ago, but the Government's policy in regard to local government areas and boundaries has been embodied in the White Paper and, now, in the Bill.

HOUSING

Small Private Houses (Grants)

Mr. David Eccles: asked the Minister of Health whether he is in a position to make any further statement with regard to Government assistance to house building by private persons.

Mr. Willink: Yes, Sir. The Government intend, if returned, to introduce legislation early in the next session to enable local authorities to make grants in respect of small private houses built for sale or letting. These grants will be by way of either one lump sum payment or payments spread over five years and the Exchequer would bear the whole of these grants up to the first £100, and half of any grant in excess of £100, subject to a maximum from the Exchequer of £150. Payment of the grant would be subject to strict conditions as to size, construction, selling price, and rent. The size to be allowed would range from 800 to 1,000 superficial feet for houses and from 730 to 930 superficial feet for bungalows or flats. The controlled-contract or selling price would be according to the size of the house, subject to an over-riding maximum

of £1,200, including the cost of land, roads and services.
The purpose of the grant is to assist the purchaser or tenant of the house by contributing towards the present high cost of building, and the Government contemplate that the grant would be paid not to the builder but to the owner-occupier or the purchaser of the house. When a house is begun under a licence issued in accordance with the decision which I announced on 7th June and conforms, or can be made to conform, with the conditions of the Act when passed, the Government intend to provide in the Bill that the position of the owner-occupier or purchaser of the house shall not be prejudiced merely by the fact that its erection was begun before the introduction of the Bill. My Noble Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland asks me to add that it is intended that similar arrangements shall apply to Scotland.

Mr. Eccles: While thanking the Minister for this very welcome statement, may I ask him if the same financial assistance will be open to local authorities?

Mr. Willink: It will not be on the same basis. There will, of course, be subsidies for houses built by local authorities but, as I have said before, the associations of local authorities have agreed that the exact figures should not be fixed until we have a clearer knowledge of the level of building costs, and they have been promised that the subsidies, when fixed, will be retrospective for all houses in their post-war programmes.

Sir J. Lamb: Does the Minister realise that many of the houses to which he referred will be in rural and semi-rural areas; and does he realise the importance of trying to get back into those areas the small builders who, unfortunately, have been taken away?

Mr. Willink: That is the reason why I made this rather full statement.

Mr. Montague: Can the Minister give some closer indication upon what initial principle the limitation of prices will be settled?

Mr. Willink: No, Sir, not in answer to a supplementary question. I stated the over-all maximum price, which is to include the cost of land, roads and services.

Sir P. Harris: Will the Minister make clear to the House how in this scheme it is proposed to arrange for the selling of these houses by the owner-occupier? Will he be able to sell at an increased price or at a loss, or is there any limitation?

Mr. Willink: The details will be for consideration by Parliament when the legislation is introduced, but, as I have said, the grants will be subject to strict conditions as to size, construction, selling price and rent.

Sir H. Williams: I gather from the Minister's answer that the subsidy is to be granted to the man who is to own the house after it has been built. Do I understand that the builder who builds the house with a view to letting or selling it is not to have any subsidy?

Mr. Willink: The reply to the latter part of my hon. Friend's question is "No." This subsidy is intended to ensure that those who desire to buy or rent small houses will not suffer unduly from the high cost of building immediately after the war.

Mr. George Griffiths: Is not this subsidy which has been announced this afternoon, put out for vote-catching?

Mr. Willink: No, Sir; this is an expansion of a policy which I announced on behalf of the late Government in July of last year.

Mr. Kirby: Docs it not mean that instead of the Government granting a subsidy to the builder of a house, the subsidy will go, in effect, to the owner-occupier who, instead of having the full benefit of the subsidy paid to him, will have to pay interest?

Mr. Willink: No, Sir—exactly the contrary; because the price of the house will be fixed and the whole scheme is to be within the administration of the local authority. It is simply for the purpose of saving those who desire to own small houses from having to stand the high cost of building immediately after the war.

Alternative Accommodation

Mr. Pritt: asked the Minister of Health what he will do for the housing of a family, the particulars of which have been communicated to him, where an ex-

Serviceman and his pregnant wife and a son of five years sleep and eat in one room, and have to find accommodation for a returned prisoner of war, and another son awaiting an operation, but with no other home to come to when he leaves hospital.

Mr. Willink: I have already brought the case to the notice of the local authority, who will offer the family alternative accommodation as soon as they are in a position to do so.

Mr. Pritt: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that this extremely efficient local authority just has not got any accommodation to offer, and does he propose that these people shall sleep in the streets or parks?

Mr. Willink: The amount of accommodation local authorities have to offer is continually increasing, owing to the repair of war damaged houses in the London area.

Mr. Pritt: Is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that in this particular borough, in which he is occupied and I am occupied, however much the repair work goes on, the long list of bombed-out people and others seeking accommodation prevents these people from getting accommodation for months or years, and would he like to exchange his accommodation for that of people like these?

Mr. Willink: I do not propose to answer the second half of the hon. and learned Gentleman's question. There is no definite line drawn for priority. There are definite powers of requisitioning for both classes of persons, the bombed-out and the inadequately housed.

Mr. Pritt: asked the Minister of Health what steps he will take to house a family of seven persons in North Hammersmith, particulars of whom have been given to him, who are at present living in two rooms with one insanitary scullery-kitchen.

Mr. Willink: I am getting into touch with the local authority, who are already aware of the case and will consider the provision of alternative accommodation as soon as suitable property becomes available.

Mr. Pritt: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say how many years or months he thinks it will be before such accommodation will become available?

Mr. Willink: I make no promises. I know quite a lot about this family; the children are well looked after, but the regrettable thing is that they came back from the reception area before their parents had proper accommodation for them.

Mr. Pritt: I asked for an estimate. Is the Minister deliberately sacrificing the citizens of London?

L.C.C. Dwellings

Captain Duncan: asked the Minister of Health how many dwellings were erected by the L.C.C. in the ten-year periods 1924–1933 and 1934–1943, respectively.

Mr. Willink: In the ten-year period April, 1924, to March, 1934, 46,979 dwellings were erected by the London County Council. For the ten-year period April, 1934, to March, 1943,the figure is 33,836, of which 30,189 houses were completed before new housing operations were suspended in September, 1939.

Captain Duncan: Do not these figures show that the statement made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Lambeth (Mr. G. Strauss) in the House last Thursday, that in the London area four or five times as many houses were built by a Labour majority as had been built by a Conservative administration, was quite in accurate?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is anticipating the battle; it starts the day after to-morrow.

Mr. G. Strauss: May I ask the Minister of Health whether in fact this comparison shows anything at all, because no houses were built after the war period; and whether the number of houses built in the London County Council area was four or five times greater under the Labour administration in the London area?

Mr. Willink: If the hon. Member will look at my answer, he will find that I separated the period up to the time when housing operations were suspended and that the average number of houses built by the London County Council in the first ten-year period was 4,700 a year. The average built by the London County Council in the period from 1934 up to the beginning of the war was 5,509 a year.

The hon. Member's statement in the course of the Debate was wholly inaccurate.

Mr. G. Strauss: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the figures he gives have no relation to what I was speaking about? I was speaking about the number of houses built in the London County Council area, in respect of slum clearance.

Mr. Willink: The hon. Member did not say "the London County Council area"; he said "the London area."

Sites (Allotments)

Flight-Lieutenant Teeling: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that certain local authorities are contemplating evicting allotment holders in order to erect temporary houses; and whether he will consider issuing an instruction that where other sites are available it is not in the public interest in view of the food scarcity that allotment holding should in this way be discouraged.

Mr. Willink: The cases my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind are I imagine those where land intended for other purposes has been temporarily used for allotments during the war. While every endeavour is made to find sites which will not involve disturbing allotment-holders, in some cases such disturbance is inevitable if enough sites are to be provided for temporary houses.

Sir Frank Sanderson: Would my right hon. and learned Friend give an assurance that where allotment-holders are disturbed, other land will be found to take its place and that appropriate compensation will be paid?

Mr. Willink: I could not possibly undertake that wherever there has been an allotment, whether permanent or temporary, during the war—and such allotments have been situated in public open spaces and on land which had originally been cleared for the building of houses—other land will be provided in exchange. What I can say is that in every case where an allotment is concerned my Department consults with the Ministry of Agriculture.

Local Authorities (Requisitioning)

Flight-Lieutenant Teeling: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that local authorities who have to


give property owners whose houses they wish to requisition time to dispose of such property to any tenants or purchasers they wish, frequently find that instead of the returned soldiers and others on the authority's waiting list for whom the requisitioning is required obtaining them, the properties go to outsiders willing to pay more; and whether he contemplates any action in this matter.

Mr. Willink: I am aware of cases such as those to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers. The question whether any amendment should be made to the existing powers of local authorities in regard to the requisitioning of dwelling accommodation for the inadequately housed is under consideration.

Local Authorities (Subsidies)

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider making capital loans to borough councils and other appropriate bodies, free of interest, to afford these authorities an early opportunity of proceeding with post-war housing schemes where it can be shown that they are prepared to let the newly-erected houses at a rent comparable with existing estates, especially bearing in mind the amount that the ratepayers will be able to afford.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Anderson): The arrangements made by the Government for the supply of capital for local authorities ensure that they will obtain the full benefit of the Government's cheap money policy. The Government also recognise that, for housing, cheap money will by itself be insufficient in present circumstances, and that further financial assistance from the central Government will be necessary. They consider, however, that this further assistance should take the form of subsidies provided on Votes, and so brought openly to the notice of Parliament, and should not be in the concealed form of concessions on rates of interest.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of the difficulties of local authorities is that they do not know how much they are going to get? Will the Government make up their mind soon, so that the authorities may have some idea of what their financial commitments may be?

Sir J. Anderson: I will take that into account.

Mr. De la Bère: I think it was quite a good answer.

WAR DECORATIONS AND MEDALS

Captain Longhurst: asked the Prime Minister to what medal men who have served in Paiforce will be entitled.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): Operational service in Iraq between 10th April and 31st May, 1941, and in Persia between 25th and 28th August, 1941, qualifies in itself for the award of the 1939–45 Star. Other service by United Kingdom or Indian Forces in Persia and Iraq between 3rd September, 1939, and 8th May, 1945, counts towards the qualifying period for the Defence Medal, which in this case is one year.

Captain Longhurst: Is it seriously suggested that men who have served in Persia and Iraq through conditions varying from 170 degrees in the sun to conditions where convoys taking aid to Russia have been trapped in the snow and later found dead are qualified for the same award as lady fire watchers in the Ministry of Health at Blackpool?

The Prime Minister: I do not think we had better bring Blackpool into it. This has been most carefully examined since the Question was first put on the Paper, and I am satisfied that it meets the requirements of the situation as justly as possible. I have never pretended that in the full distribution of all these stars and medals over millions of people there will not be hard cases, but I think it is impossible to meet them without raising other hard cases.

Commander Locker-Lampson: Cannot the claims of the M.T.C. be further considered, not now but later?

The Prime Minister: They are all included.

PUBLIC CONTROL (GOVERNMENT POLICY)

Mr. Glenvil Hall: asked the Prime Minister if the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his recent broadcast to the effect that certain activities hitherto wholly or largely in private


hands may well require a large measure of public control represents the policy of the Government.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, subject of course to facts and circumstances.

Mr. Hall: Will the Prime Minister give the House any indication as to which are the activities he now has in mind that are ripe for public control?

The Prime Minister: We are all engaged in exposing to the public judgment all the views we hold on all topics, and I do not think any statement from me at this moment in the House would be a valuable addition.

Mr. Hall: Surely the right hon. Gentleman must know that the nation is waiting to know the news as to which of these activities the right hon. Gentleman and his Government, if they are returned, desire to see go under public control?

The Prime Minister: As I say, it depends on facts and circumstances. The facts may be disputable and the circumstances varied.

UNITED STATES FORCES (THANKS)

Commander Locker-Lampson: asked the Prime Minister whether he will send a message of good will and thanks from this House to the U.S.A. forces before Parliament dissolves.

The Prime Minister: This of course is a matter which will be considered at the appropriate time.

AGRICULTURE

Foxes (Importation)

Mr. Leach: asked the Minister of Agriculture if his attention has been drawn to the expressed intention of certain hunting interests to secure the importation of foxes from Belgium; and will he give an assurance that the existing prohibition of these animals will not be relaxed for such a purpose.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. Donald Scott): My right hon. Friend is not aware of any proposal to import foxes into Great Britain from Belgium, but the hon. Member can rest assured that my right

hon. Friend has no intention of relaxing in any way the present restrictions on their importation.

Sir J. Lamb: Could the right hon. Gentleman consider the export trade as well?

Viscountess Astor: Could my hon. Friend ask the hon. Member from where he got this story, because it sounds to me like so many other Socialist stories?

Dispossessed Farmers' Land (Restoration)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether land taken over during the war in Europe by war agricultural executive committees is now in some cases to be restored to the dispossessed farmers.

Mr. Scott: In view of the critical food situation and the necessity for continuing to produce the maximum amount in this country, my right hon. Friend cannot at present contemplate the restoration of land to farmers who have been dispossessed for bad farming.

Mr. Driberg: In order to enable a fair review to be made of these comparatively few but sometimes rather distressing cases, could the Parliamentary Secretary say whether his right hon. Friend is contemplating reconstituting these committees on a broader and more representative basis?

Mr. Scott: That is another question, with which I shall be dealing in a moment.

War Executive Committees

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture (1) whether, now that the war in Europe is ended, he will make provision for a right of appeal to the courts of law by an individual against decisions of the county war agricultural executive committees;
(2) whether he will consider reconstituting the county war agricultural executive committees now that the war in Europe is over; and whether, in order to secure well-informed local committees, the members will be appointed from fanners, land owners, agricultural workers and land agents, after consultation with the local union or association representing these agricultural bodies.

Mr. Scott: The whole question of the future constitution, functions and powers of county war agricultural executive committees is under consideration.

Mr. De la Bère: Does not my hon. Friend appreciate that there should be a right of appeal, in times of peace, from the war agricultural committee? It is unconstitutional when there is no right of appeal. That is of vital importance.

Mr. Scott: Full consultation will have to take place with all interested national bodies, and that and many other points will be considered.

Mr. De la Bère: Should I be returned in August, I shall have another go at this.

Sir Herbert Holdsworth: Is this not a question, not of war agricultural committees, but of restoring personal liberty?

Ministry Staff (Biologists)

Mr. Edmund Harvey: asked the Minister of Agriculture what measures are being taken to add to the numbers of trained biologists employed by his Ministry.

Mr. Scott: The future programmes of work involving the employment by the Ministry of trained biologists are under consideration.

Mr. Harvey: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in post-war development plans, trained biologists may have a very important part to play?

FISHING INDUSTRY (DRIFTERS)

Mr. Loftus: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will consult the Herring Industry Board with a view to giving priority in the allocation of drifters built or chartered by the board to skipper-owners, or part owners, whose drifters were lost by enemy action while in service under the Admiralty and who cannot afford to replace these by new vessels at current prices as the compensation paid was based on 1939 values.

Mr. Scott: My right hon. Friend has consulted the Herring Industry Board, who consider that the limited number of vessels which may be available for charter should be reserved for young men, particularly ex-Servicemen, with limited resources, who desire to try out their abilities in the herring fishing industry. I would, however, remind my hon. Friend

that the facilities for loans, and for grants in cases of need, to assist fishermen to obtain boats and gear which they cannot afford out of their own resources, will be available to the owners or part-owners referred to in the Question.

Mr. Loftus: Is my hon. Friend aware that almost all the skipper-owners have been on active service throughout the war—mine-sweeping—and is he aware of the fact that the compensation for their boats destroyed by enemy action is not a quarter of the cost of a new boat? Will the Minister therefore reconsider the whole question?

Mr. Scott: I will most certainly bring those points to the notice of my right hon. Friend. The reply I have given, of course, covers ex-Servicemen.

HISTORIC BUILDINGS (LIST)

Mr. Keeling: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning what progress he has made with the compilation of lists of buildings of special architectural merit or historic interest with which he was entrusted by Section 42 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Town and Country Planning (Mr. Tree): My right hon. Friend has now decided to appoint a Committee to advise him on this subject, and it is hoped to announce the names shortly.

PENSION APPLICATION (DARWEN)

Captain Prescott: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he has now arranged for an independent medical specialist to visit and examine Mr. T. Aspden, of 93, Hindle Street, Darwen.

The Minister of Pensions (Sir Walter Womersley): I am looking into this case and will write to my hon. and gallant Friend.

Captain Prescott: Is it not a fact that this case has been before the right hon. Gentleman's Department for a long time, and that a previous Question was put on the Order Paper, and taken off on the assurance that an independent specialist would visit Mr. Aspden? Cannot the matter be expedited forthwith?

Sir W. Womersley: It will be expedited as much as possible.

WAR PENSIONS RATES (IMPROVEMENT)

Captain Duncan: asked the Minister of Pensions whether any adjustments in the rates of war pensions will be made in the light of the Government's intentions in the matter of industrial insurance.

Sir W. Womersley: Yes, Sir. As from the first pay day in September, I am proposing to make certain improvements, of which the following is the most important. A man in receipt of unemployable supplement who, in addition to his normal pension, is drawing less than 20s. a week by way of that supplement, health insurance benefit or old age pension, will have the total payments under those heads brought up to this amount. The rate of wife's allowance payable to a pensioner during periods of approved treatment, or when in receipt of unemployable supplement, will, where she is wholly dependent upon her husband, be increased to 16s. a week. Where she is not wholly dependent, the increase will be on a sliding scale. Where no allowance is payable for a wife, an allowance of 16s. will be payable for a wholly dependent adult relative residing with the pensioner, or an adult female person who has the care of his children. The allowance will be on a sliding scale in cases of partial dependence. The improvements generally may require review as and when a new comprehensive scheme of social insurance becomes operative.

Captain Duncan: Will my right hon. Friend publish a White Paper, giving the full details?

Sir W. Womersley: I cannot promise to do that before this Parliament dissolves.

Mr. Pritt: Put it in an election address.

Mr. Driberg: Will these improvements apply to ex-Service pensioners of the last war; and will the total disability pension remain at £2?

Sir W. Womersley: All improvements made apply to pensioners of both wars. This brings the £2 in the case of a man declared unemployable up to £3.

INDIA (POLITICAL DETAINEES)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for India how many political

prisoners now remain in detention without charge; and how many have been released in the North West Frontier Province.

The Secretary of State for India (Mr. Amery): The number of the persons detained in connection with Congress activities on 1st April last was 1,252. The 21 persons still remaining in detention in the North-West Frontier Province on 1st March had all been released by 1st April.

Mr. Sorensen: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication at this point whether the remaining prisoners will follow their friends who are already out of gaol?

Mr. Amery: If the hon. Member will restrain his curiosity just a little longer, he may perhaps, in the words of solicitors' notices, hear of something to his advantage.

TREASURY ORDER (PHARMACISTS)

Mr. Viant: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the application of the Treasury Order, S.R. & O. 1945 No. 482, is viewed with apprehension by pharmacists as being likely to cause considerable extra work and hardship at a time when they are already overworked; and in view of their services during the national emergency, will he reconsider this subject.

Sir J. Anderson: I would refer the hon. Member to the terms of the Prime Minister's statement on this subject on Business last Thursday.

DISCHARGED SOLDIERS (LEAVE PAY)

Mr. Cocks: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if the Government's rule that soldiers honourably discharged on medical grounds are to be granted 56 days' release leave on full pay is retrospective means that all soldiers who have already been discharged on these grounds with only 28 days' leave will have the additional 28 days' pay made up to them at the appropriate time.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Peake): No, Sir, the grant of 56 days' paid leave in cases of discharge on medical grounds is restrospective only


in the sense that it has been in force since 15th October, 1944. There can be no question of allowing an additional grant in respect of discharge leave to men invalided before that date.

Mr. Cocks: Is it not clear that those released before that date in October were given 28 days' leave, whereas those released the day after were give 56 days' leave?

Mr. Peake: No, Sir. When the White Paper on Reallocation of Man-Power was published in September last, but not to come into force till after the termination of hostilities in Europe, it was thought proper to antedate this special concession to men discharged on special grounds. It was, therefore, brought into operation on 15th October, 1944. But it would be quite impossible to make a new concession of this kind applicable retrospectively.

OLD AGE PENSIONS

Lady Apsley: asked the Minister of National Insurance how many old age pensioners are in receipt of supplementary pensions; and what is the increase in numbers since January, 1943.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of National Insurance (Mr. Peat): At the end of April, 1945, supplementary pensions were being paid in respect of about 1,590,000 old age pensioners and widows over the age of 60, or about 180,000 more than in January, 1943.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Could the hon. Member say the average amount that those pensioners are receiving?

Mr. Peat: Not without notice.

FISH CURING

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Arthur Heneage: asked the Minister of Food if he is satisfied that there are enough fish-curing and preserving establishments near the ports of landing; and what steps he proposes to take.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Miss Horsbrugh): Yes, Sir. Some of the establishments are not working to capacity, however, owing to labour difficulties and enemy action. My right hon. Friend is taking all practicable

steps, in consultation with other Departments concerned, to obtain staff and to carry out repairs as well as to encourage improvements.

WAR FACTORIES, MERSEYSIDE (DEMONSTRATION)

Mr. Logan: With your permission, Sir, I would like, before putting a Private Notice Question to the Prime Minister, to ask if he is aware of the difficulty that Members of this House have in getting communications to him? I have been informed that, on account of there being no messenger, a Private Notice Question which I addressed to him has been put in the post, and sent to the right hon. Member. I call that a very bad system, and I wish to call the attention of the Prime Minister to it, in the hope that it will be rectified.

The Prime Minister: I am sorry if the General Post Office has broken down, but in an emergency of that character my right hon. and gallant Friend the Postmaster-General would have readily presented himself to the service of the hon. Member.

Mr. Logan: It is no use continuing on that point.

The Prime Minister: Obviously.

Mr. Logan: My Question is as follows: Whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that yesterday at 3 p.m. in Liverpool a demonstration of war factory workers of Merseyside was held; that men and women workers, after years of service in the interests of the nation, are fearing dismissal; and what security of employment can the Government offer to them?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir; I will answer with great pleasure, the Question of which the hon. Gentleman failed to give me Private Notice. I understand that yesterday there was a procession of some workers employed in the Napier aero-engine factory at Liverpool. I am informed that, as a result of programme reduction, the labour force of this factory, engaged on aero-engine production, has already been reduced by 3,000, and will be further reduced by 4,000 in the next four to five months. Practically all the workers so far released have secured other employment. As to the future, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply of


my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service on 31st May, to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing (Sir F. Sanderson) and of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to the hon. Member for Everton (Mr. Kirby) on 12th June. I can send copies of these replies to the hon. Gentleman if he so desires.

Mr. Logan: Is the Prime Minister aware that it is not only Napiers who are concerned? I have referred to the Merseyside—both banks of it. All the workers there are dissatisfied, because they feel that numbers of them will be thrown out of work. They are asking whether there cannot be some policy devised to stabilise employment in the change-over from war production to civil production. In other words, can the Government take over the works, and employ the labour?

The Prime Minister: There is no way in the world of preventing a quite violent dislocation going on in the change-over from war to peace. Every effort to provide against it has been made, and an immense amount of foresight and care has been exercised. But there must be a day when, in fact, everything does have to stop, before new jigs or other plant can be installed, and there must be a considerable proportion of temporary unemployment through this fact of moving. Of course, in the Beveridge Report, a rate of 8 per cent. was calculated, which would mean 600,000, but, at the present time, there are less than 60,000 who are immediately unemployed, and the demand for employment will grow—that is, on the other side—at any rate, for the next year or two. It is in this movement from the one to the other that there will be dislocation. I am sorry for the workers, but the provision of unemployment pay comes into operation.

Mr. Reakes: May I ask the Prime Minister if it would not have been better for the Government Departments to have foreseen the situation, and made it unnecessary for workers who have rendered wonderful service on Merseyside in the war situation, to demonstrate in this manner?

The Prime Minister: I think it was quite unnecessary for them to demonstrate in this manner, apart from other considerations, but there will undoubtedly be a

continued succession of short stoppages between one factory and another, and one kind of work and another, and anyone who deludes himself into thinking that it could be avoided is doing less than justice to the difficulties.

Mr. Butcher: Would the Prime Minister invite his Ministers to draw the attention of these people to the opportunities of useful and healthful work in the harvest fields in the coming weeks?

Mr. Pritt: Will the Prime Minister consider that the Ministers of Supply and Aircraft Production ought to have contracted for house furniture, house parts or something of that sort, to follow on war contracts in factories, just as we have one aeroplane contract following on another? Why should there be any gap at all?

The Prime Minister: It would not be much use trying to make house parts in a factory which has teen adapted to make aeroplanes until there had, at any rate, been some temporary break in order to put in the new plant.

BRITISH SCIENTISTS (VISIT TO RUSSIA)

Mr. Driberg (by Private Notice): asked the Prime Minister if he is aware that eight members of the party of eminent British scientists who were to leave today on a visit to Russia as guests of the Soviet Academy of Sciences have been notified that permission to leave this country has been refused them on security grounds; if he will state what security considerations are involved; and if, in the interests of good relations between Britain and the Soviet Union, he will cause this decision to be revoked forthwith?

The Prime Minister: The Soviet Government were good enough to issue invitations to some 40 distinguished men of science in the United Kingdom to attend the celebration in Moscow and Leningrad of the 220th Jubilee of the Soviet Academy of Scientists. The Royal Society and some 15 other scientific institutions of Great Britain were also invited to send representatives. The Soviet Ambassador in London informed the Foreign Secretary on 22nd May of the issue of these invitations, and my right hon. Friend replied welcoming the courteous action of the Soviet Government


and expressing the hope that as many as possible of those invited would be able to go. As the Soviet Ambassador was informed yesterday, His Majesty's Government are happy to know that it has been possible for 21 of the scientists invited from this country to undertake the visit. It is true that in the case of eight other scientists who had accepted, His Majesty's Government did not feel able to authorise the grant of facilities for the journey. His Majesty's Government on consideration found that it was impossible to spare from the United Kingdom at this stage of the war against Japan which is still going on so many eminent scientists whose services they may wish to employ on research and other work connected with war operations. I am confident that the Soviet Union will understand the preoccupations in this respect of His Majesty's Government in view of the fact that this country is engaged still in a deadly war against a formidable enemy.

Mr. Driberg: Is the Prime Minister aware that the scientists who have been refused permission to leave include such world-famous men as Professor Milne, Professor Norrish, Sir Charles Darwin and Mr. Bernal, and that these scientists have been told by the Ministry of Information, who had arranged the visit, that it was only the last-minute interference of the military security authorities which prevented their departure?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. It is not on any question of security, but on a question of getting work done here which we have got to get done for the purpose of the Japanese war.

NATIONAL SAVINGS COMMITTEE (LEAFLET)

Mr. R. J. Taylor (by Private Notice): asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the notice W.3765 issued through the National Savings Committee withdrawing leaflet W.F.L.146, "Your Savings are Safe," and whether he can state the reason for such withdrawal?

Sir J. Anderson: I have made inquiry. No copies of the leaflet already issued have been withdrawn, but I understand that the National Savings Committee decided to suspend further issues for the present.

The Savings Movement is a strictly non-political movement, which, indeed, has, I am glad to say, the support of all parties. It was thought, therefore, that at the present time it was wiser that the Committee should not continue the issue of any literature which might be thought, however unjustifiably, to have a party flavour.

Mr. Taylor: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer inform us how, in any way, "Your Savings are Safe" has any bearing on political flavour?

Sir J. Anderson: I am perfectly well aware that all political parties in this country have proclaimed their desire to protect the savings of the people. There can be no room for controversy about that, but the leaflet in question is an undated document that contains references that might, in present circumstances, be misunderstood, and I am bound to say that I think the National Savings Committee were quite right in trying to be on the safe side in this matter.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Do I understand from the first part of the Chancellor's statement, that he did not listen to the Prime Minister's broadcast on Wednesday week?

Sir J. Anderson: I do not quite see the relevance of that question.

Mr. Hall: I thought the Chancellor committed himself to the assertion that all parties were now interested in savings, and we understood from the Prime Minister that only one party was?

Sir J. Anderson: I said that all parties at least proclaimed their desire to protect the savings of the people.

FOREIGN SITUATION

The Prime Minister: I have received, during the course of the morning, some suggestion that it would be agreeable to the House if I made a few remarks upon the foreign situation before we separat3—almost for ever—to-morrow. The House will, I know, realise what a blow to me it has been at this particular time to be deprived of the help of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. Not only does he play a most important part in our political affairs—and politics seem to have come to the front rather lately—but his great knowledge of the foreign situa-


tion, and of all the tangled topics which run on in the files of that Department in this respect, has made his help invaluable. It was his main responsibility—

Mr. Speaker: The House will forgive me for interrupting the right hon. Gentleman, but it seems to me that this is a statement that might well be the subject of Debate. We have the Consolidated Fund Bill coming on later, and it might be as well to have it on the Third Reading of that Bill. I make that suggestion, and leave it to hon. Members of the House.

The Prime Minister: I do not think that I shall be embarking on controversial topics, but if I do the knowledge of them will be before the House and discussion can be taken on the Consolidated Fund Bill, although my particular statement would not be actually a part of the proceedings on that Bill.

Mr. A. Bevan: rose—

The Prime Minister: I do not wish to do it. I was asked to do it. I am perfectly ready not to make any statement.

Mr. Bevan: With all respect—

The Prime Minister: I have not the slightest wish to make it.

Mr. Bevan: I think the House would be very anxious to hear any statement that the Prime Minister wished to make on foreign affairs. All I would ask is that the statement might be regularised. The Prime Minister can do a number of things, but I think what the Prime Minister cannot do is to get up and make a statement such as he is making now, without any Motion of any sort before the House.

The Prime Minister: I did not think it was a controversial matter to say it was a heavy blow to me that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was laid up. If it was I withdraw it.

Mr. Bevan: On a point of Order. The Prime Minister can have all sorts of anxieties, and they may have public implications, but I know of no Standing Order that enables the Prime Minister to get up and inform us of what his anxieties are.

Earl Winterton: On a point of Order. Without taking any part in this controversy or discussion, may I point out that I understand that a very important state-

ment is to be made by the Secretary of State for India on the subject of the proposals of His Majesty's Government for the future government of India, and may I, with great respect, suggest that there would be deep regret in India if that statement were not made and if we did not have an opportunity to discuss it? I do not know if this has any relevance to the present matter, but we have been promised that statement.

The Prime Minister: On that point of Order. I was not aware that it was out of Order for Ministers to make statements on public matters—with your permission, Mr. Speaker, and, of course, the general indulgence of the House—but if that is not forthcoming I will readily withdraw.

Mr. Speaker: I think the suggestion which I made may have caused the trouble. [HON. Members: "No."] It is perfectly in Order for a Minister to make a statement, but I thought this was becoming a speech rather than a statement, and that is why I rose. Let me put one fact before the House which is of importance in connection with what the Noble Lord said. I understand that at about this time a statement is to be made by Lord Wavell in India, and the statement on the subject here would have to be made in 15 minutes from now, in order to synchronise with Lord Wavell's statement. Therefore I said it would be, perhaps, for the convenience of the House if the Prime Minister made his statement on the Consolidated Fund Bill.

Sir Percy Harris: I understood from the Leader of the Opposition that the Prime Minister was going to make a statement of an objective character, and we were asked if we had any objection, and I think it is only fair to the House to say that we stated that we had no objection.

The Prime Minister: In order to keep clear of all controversy I will not enlarge on the controversial topic of my regret that the Foreign Secretary is laid up. I was going to say that at the end of war, when important victories have been won, Allies usually fall into discord, and I was also going to make the fairly unexceptionable remark that upon the whole a comman hatred is not a sufficient bond, after fighting has stopped, for the action of great Allies. I have clearly got through that anyhow.
I am glad to report an improvement in the relations of the great Allies, even since the righting has stopped. So far as our relations with France are concerned, they have been greatly distressed and disturbed by events in Syria, on which I made a statement the other day. I should like to take the opportunity of saying once again, that the British have no ambitions or desires for aggrandisement in Syria. We have no idea of trying to supplant our French friends, in Syria. We have no wish to steal anybody's property in any portion of the globe. In this case there is the matter of the French influence in Syria, That we shall support, but only in counsel. It is not for us to secure the establishment of that influence any more than it is for us to pull it down. We are very glad if France can manage for herself in discussions with the Syrians and the Lebanese, so that a satisfactory treaty will be arrived at, and we have said that the moment that that treaty has been reached we will withdraw our troops from the country. Therefore, there cannot be any real basis of misunderstanding between us and France on this matter, and I am very glad to hear that M. Herriot is said to be coming over here, on behalf of General de Gaulle, and I am sure in the conversations which will ensue we shall be glad to convince our French friends of our completely disinterested attitude in regard to any action we have had to take in Syria, and of our good wishes to them in regard to maintaining their interests there.
Trouble threatened at the head of the Adriatic. Some misunderstanding arose between Marshal Tito as to the positions which his troops should occupy and those which the troops of General Alexander, commanding the Allied Forces in Italy, should occupy. We do not need to go into the details of that, but at one time it looked like an anxious and difficult issue, especially when troops are in close contact without agreement over a large extent of rugged country. I am glad to say that these matters have been settled diplomatically in such a way as may give full satisfaction to the views of the British and American Governments, and, at the same time, have left the whole question of the disposition of these territories open to the Peace Conference, when that occurs. Until then, each must bide where he stands at the present time.
Our relations with Russia have undergone a marked improvement in the last week or so, because one difficult matter connected with Poland has already been settled. Invitations have been sent to Mr. Mikolajcyzk and other Poles in this country and to Mr. Sapieha and Mr. Witos and others in Poland who were nominated by the British or United States Governments. Invitations have been sent to them to proceed at once to Moscow, where the Conferences between the two Ambassadors and Mr. Molotov will be reinforced by Conferences in a larger circle in which the present Warsaw Polish Government will be assisted by representatives of the Poles from outside the country and others outside the scope of that Government.

Mr. A. Bevan: On a point of Order. There has been established in this House for some time a provision by which Ministers of the Crown may make statements at the end of Questions of an urgent or emergency character, and it has been laid down by you, Mr. Speaker, that those statements may not be of too controversial a character, unless proper provision is made for them to be debated. In my respectful submission, there is no reason at all why the House should be burdened by the statement now being made by the PrimeMinister—[Hon. Members: "Oh."]—because everything the Prime Minister has been saying so far has been in the public Press for the last two or three days. In my respectful submission, this unusual exercise of. Parliamentary procedure ought not to be abused by allowing the Prime Minister to make general essays of a character which should be subject to discussion in the House of Commons.

Mr. Speaker: The House has allowed the Prime Minister to make a statement and, therefore, he must be allowed to proceed. The difficulty is that if it is controversial Members may want to go into particular questions, and that is a difficulty which I foresaw, when I rose a few minutes ago.

The Prime Minister: I have been somewhat ill-treated in this matter. I received an intimation this morning—and only this morning and that is why I have prepared nothing—that it would be agreeable to the Leader of the Opposition and to Members opposite, that I should make a statement of this kind; and


I have still some information to give to the House which the hon. Member has not read either in the decent Press of the country, or any other.

Mr. Attlee: May I say that for some time it had been intimated to the Prime Minister that it might be desirable, before the House broke up, that a statement should be made on the present position of foreign affairs, and as far as I know there has been no complaint whatever upon this side that the Prime Minister should be allowed to make a statement of this nature.

Earl Winterton: On a point of Order. While I do not wish to take part in this controversy, I do, with the greatest respect, wish to protect the interests of the House, and say that I hope that on future occasions it will not be laid down or held that, because the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister come to an agreement that a statement should be made, such statement must be made without Debate. It may be justified in the present circumstances, but it is fundamentally opposed to the whole conception of the procedure of this House, which is that if a statement is made it can be debated. I say this without reference to the present matter and I ask for an answer.

Mr. Attlee: The Noble Lord is not correct. It was not suggested in any intimation that I gave that it should not be without debate, but that a statement should be made, and if the House desired to debate it, there would be an opportunity to debate it on the Consolidated Fund Bill.

The Prime Minister: On the same point of Order. It has been usual for Ministers to be permitted after Questions to make statements which are not debatable. That is a procedure, which is perfectly well known, which the Father of the House has overlooked. But I have nearly finished my unwelcome task. I was only going to say that, in respect of the people who were invited to Russia, some of these difficulties had been overcome. But it must be remembered that they are only going to take part in a consultation, the object of which is to see whether the Warsaw Government can be extended or not, and we had rather hoped that that would have been settled three months ago.
Our accord with the United States continues to be complete, and I have been very glad to hear from President Truman, and to read also his statements in the papers, that he is agreeable to a meeting of what are called file Three—no longer "the Big Three" apparently, but "the Three." Whether that is a compliment or not I cannot tell. Mr. Stalin has agreed, and the meeting will be held, I am not entitled to say where nor exactly when, but before the results of the impending Election here, including the receipt of the soldiers' votes from abroad, are announced. Therefore, I shall proceed to join the others at the place which has been agreed, but considering that our for tunes hang in the balance on both sides, that any one may claim the future, and the great importance which is attached to the voice of Britain being united, I have invited my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition—my right hon. Friend for this purpose as well as for others; except purely Parliamentary purposes, I may certainly call him that—to come with the British Delegation in case anyone says, "Why are you committing yourself to something for which you have no authority, when in the ballot box there may be something which strips you of your authority?" There will be my right hon. Friend, and we have always in these last few years thought alike on the foreign situation and agreed together. Then there will be an opportunity for it to be shown that, although Governments may change and parties may quarrel, yet on some of the main essentials of foreign affairs we stand together. That is, I am sure, doing no disadvantage to the party opposite; on the contrary—

Mr. Cocks: Is the right hon. Gentleman going to take the Gestapo with him?

The Prime Minister: I hope that we shall be in a position, in a short time, to nip that project in the bud. I have no more to say. I will not intrude upon the House any longer, except to pay my acknowledgements to the hon. Gentleman opposite for the unfailing courtesy with which he has marked this long ten years' Parliament which is now departing, and, if I may finish my statement, I would like to say that I think we have every right to be proud of our record. For the first five years the Parliament strove for peace and it strove—

Mr. A. Bevan: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask—

The Prime Minister: rose—

Mr. Bevan: I insist on a point of Order. I ask for your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. Under what precedent, what rule and what practice can the House of Commons be subjected to these general meanderings which have no relationship at all to any statement or any emergency?

Mr. Speaker: The House clearly wants the Prime Minister to finish his statement; therefore, the right hon. Gentleman is entitled to continue.

The Prime Minister: As I say, the first five years were mainly devoted to the tight for peace; the second five years have been devoted to the fight for victory, and it is in these second five years, when almost everything had been crashing in the world, that this House has, once again, manifested before all the world its power, Its authority and its practical methods of conducting business even in the most hazardous and difficult conditions.

Mr. Bellenger: All that has emerged from the Prime Minister's remarks this afternoon is that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has been invited to accompany the Prime Minister on one of his foreign travels. I understood that it was the purpose of this intervention of the Prime Minister to give the House some information on India. [Hon. Members: "No."] Therefore, may I ask the Government [Hon. Members: "No."] Mr. Speaker, I am entirely in your hands. The Prime Minister has made a statement and I understand that that statement is debatable. The Prime Minister has made only one important announcement—that the Leader of the Opposition is accompanying him. A far more important statement, we were led to believe by the Prime Minister when he rose, was to be made with regard to India.

Mr. Speaker: I would point out that I did say during the early part of the Prime Minister's statement that there was to be a statement on India in 15 minutes' time, as it had to be synchronised with a similar statement in India; this I said would be debated on the Consolidated Fund Bill.

Mr. Bellenger: I wish to point out, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister was

given the indulgence of the House in order to make a statement and they would never have given indulgence for a statement which was in the nature of an electioneering speech. Therefore, I think that the Prime Minister has abused the indulgence of the House this afternoon in making a statement such as he has made.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS

That they have agreed to—

Postponement of Polling Day Bill,

Family Allowances Bill,

London County Council (Money) Bill, without Amendment.

Amendments to—

South Shields Corporation Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

PUBLIC PETITIONS

Second Report from the Committee on Public Petitions brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

WISBECH WATER BILL

Reported, with Amendments, from the Committee on Group "B" of Private Bills (with Report on the Bill).

Bill, as amended, and Report to lie upon the Table; Report to be printed.

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL

Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

INDIA (GOVERNMENT POLICY)

3.55 p.m.

The Secretary of State for India (Mr. Amery): May I take the opportunity of reading to the House a statement which I have been authorised by his Majesty's Goverment to make on the subject of India, and which is being published at the same time in India? The statement is in the form of a White Paper, and is now available in the Vote Office. It says:
"During the recent visit of Field-Marshal Viscount Wavell to this country His Majesty's Government reviewed with him a number of problems and discussed particularly the present political situation in India.
Members will be aware that since the offer by His Majesty's Government to India in March, 1942, there has been no further progress towards the solution of the Indian constitutional problem.
As was then stated, the working out of India's new constitutional system is a task which can only be carried through by the Indian peoples themselves.
While His Majesty's Government are at all times most anxious to do their utmost to assist the Indians in the working out of a new constitutional settlement, it would be a contradiction in terms to speak of the imposition by this country of self-governing institutions upon an unwilling India. Such a thing is not possible, nor could we accept the responsibility for enforcing such institutions at the very time when we were, by its purpose, withdrawing from all control of British Indian affairs.
The main constitutional position remains therefore as it was. The offer of March, 1942, stands in its entirety without change or qualification. His Majesty's Government still hope that the political leaders in India may be able to come to an agreement as to the procedure whereby India's

permanent future form of government can be determined."

Mr. Cove: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. I am not an expert in Parliamentary procedure, although I have been here a long time, but this is the first time that I can remember a Secretary of State reading a. White Paper that we can already get in the Vote Office. I have read it myself already. I should have thought that it is usual for the Minister concerned to explain and amplify the White Paper and not to read to us that which we can already get from the Vote Office. It seems to me to be rather amateur treatment of the House.

Mr. Amery: I shall, of course, explain and amplify what is in that statement. As the statement has only been released a little while ago and a good many hon. Members have not had an opportunity of reading it, I thought it would be for the convenience of the House that I should read it.

Mr. Cove: It is rather a shabby treatment of the House to issue a White Paper just before we adjourn, and ask us to listen to the Secretary of State for India reading it, when it is on such an important matter as the status of India. I think the Government are treating the House and the Country with scant courtesy and with no appreciation of the gigantic importance of India to the British Empire.

Mr. Amery: It has been of great importance that the issue of the statement should be synchronised in this country and in India. It was not possible to issue it earlier than this afternoon, and, therefore, I still hope that it may be for the convenience of the House that I should read the statement. If not, I am prepared to give an explanation of it without reading it.

Mr. A. Bevan: I rise with some diffidence to support my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove), because I do not know whether this also may not have been arranged through the usual channels. As the arrangements through the usual channels now appear not to be subject to the Rules of the House, I am in some difficulty when I try to raise this matter. It is a Rule of the House that statements may not be read except statements by Ministers of the


Crown, who have need to read them in order to be word perfect on matters which may be of great public international import. As this is a White Paper, available in the Vote Office, why should we be subjected to the tedium of hearing a statement read out, which is available to Members in all parts of the House?

Mr. Amery: I suggest that in that case I need not submit the House to that tedium. As proceedings have been a little delayed, there has been time for a great many Members to see the White Paper, and I think I can cover the essential points in it sufficiently well in my explanatory statement. Therefore, I shall be only too happy, with the consent of the House, to proceed at once to some explanation of the political—

Mr. Colegate: On a point of Order. A great many of us have had no opportunity whatsoever of reading this statement. We wish to hear the statement and I beg that we may be allowed to do so. It is quite impossible for us to follow this Debate unless we hear the White Paper read.

Mr. Speaker: These are not points of Order. It is for the Minister to decide how to make his speech.

Sir John Wardlaw-Milne: I would ask my right hon. Friend to adhere to his original intention. It is merely a question of convenience. The House has had no opportunity of reading this statement. It is quite clear that it could only be issued at this particular moment, so it is for the convenience of the House that before we debate it we should at least have a chance of knowing what the White Paper says. It is not an insult to anybody; it is a mere matter of convenience, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will continue.

Mr. Colegate: Please read it.

Mr. S. O. Davies (Merthyr): This White Paper has been in the Vote Office and, in fact, even in the hands of some hon. Members for the last 40 minutes. It has 23 paragraphs in it, and surely the right hon. Gentleman is not going to inflict it upon us now—

Mr. Colegate: It is not an infliction.

Mr. Davies: —and treat hon. Members of this House as if they were young and irresponsible children.

Mr. Cove: I repeat that I know of no occasion when such a procedure has been adopted, and I want to say to my hon. Friend opposite that, evidently, some of us on this side are keener about the interests of India and the British Empire than they are, because we have already read the White Paper.

Mr. Colegate: Then the hon. Members were not paying attention to the proceedings of the House. Surely those hon. Members who are not specially interested can leave the House while it is read?

Mr. Speaker: I really think that this House is not doing itself justice by becoming involved in a somewhat unseemly wrangle.

Hon. Members: Read on.

Mr. Amery: The opinion of the House is divided, and it would certainly suit the convenience of a good many Members that I should read it out. I will read it as speedily as I can, and I hope hon. Members opposite will have patience with me while I do so because, after all, it is a statement of considerable importance not only to us here but to the people of India. I think I reached the end of the fifth paragraph and I resume:
"His Majesty's Government are, however, most anxious to make any contribution that is practicable to the breaking of the political deadlock in India. While that deadlock lasts not only political but social and economic progress is being hampered.
The Indian administration, over-burdened with the great tasks laid upon it by the war against Japan and by the planning for the post-war period, is further strained by the political tension that exists.
All that is so urgently required to be done for agricultural and industrial development and for the peasants and workers of India cannot be carried through unless the whole-hearted co-operation of every community and section of the Indian people is forthcoming.
His Majesty's Government have therefore considered whether there is something which they could suggest in this interim period, under the existing con-


stitution, pending the formulation by Indians of their future constitutional arrangements, which would enable the main communities and parties to co-operate more closely together and with the British to the benefit of India as a whole.
It is not the intention of His Majesty's Government to introduce any change contrary to the wishes of the major Indian communities. But they are willing to make possible some step forward during the interim period if the leaders of the principal Indian parties are prepared to agree to their suggestions and to co-operate in the successful conclusion of the war against Japan as well as in the reconstruction in India which must follow the final victory.
To this end they would be prepared to see an important change in the composition of the Viceroy's Executive. This is possible without making any change in the existing statute law except for one amendment to the Ninth Schedule to the Act of 1935. That Schedule contains a provision that not less than three members of the Executive must have had at least 10 years' Service under the Crown in India. If the proposals of His Majesty's Government meet with acceptance in India, that clause would have to be amended to dispense with that requirement."
It is proposed that the Executive Council should be reconstituted and that the Viceroy should in future make his selection for nomination to the Crown for appointment to his Executive from amongst leaders of Indian political life at the Centre and in the Provinces, in proportions which would give a balanced representation of the main communities, including equal proportions of Moslems and Caste Hindus.
In order to pursue this object, the Viceroy will call into conference a number of leading Indian politicians who are the heads of the most important parties or who have had recent experience as Prime Ministers of Provinces, together with a few others of special experience and authority. The Viceroy intends to put before this conference the proposal that the Executive Council should be reconstituted as above stated and to invite from the members of the conference a list of names. Out of these he would

hope to be able to choose the future members whom he would recommend for appointment by His Majesty to the Viceroy's Council, although the responsibility for the recommendations must of course continue to rest with him, and his freedom of choice therefore remains unrestricted.
The members of his Council who are chosen as a result of this arrangement would of course accept the position on the basis that they would whole-heartedly co-operate in supporting and carrying through the war against Japan to its victorious conclusion.
The members of the Executive would be Indians with the exception of the Viceroy and the Commander-in-Chief, who would retain his position as War Member. This is essential so long as the defence of India remains a British responsibility.
Nothing contained in any of these proposals will affect the relations of the Crown with the Indian States through the Viceroy as Crown Representative.
The Viceroy has been authorised by His Majesty's Government to place this proposal before the Indian Leaders. His Majesty's Government trust that the leaders of the Indian communities will respond. For the success of such a plan must depend upon its acceptance in India and the degree to which responsible Indian politicians are prepared to cooperate with the object of making it a workable interim arrangement. In the absence of such general acceptance existing arrangements must necessarily continue.
If such co-operation can be achieved at the Centre it will no doubt be reflected in the Provinces and so enable responsible Governments to be set up once again in those Provinces where, owing to the withdrawal of the majority party from participation, it became necessary to put into force the powers of the Governors under Section 93 of the Act of 1935. It is to be hoped that in all the Provinces these Governments would be based on the participation of the main parties, thus smoothing out communal differences and allowing Ministers to concentrate upon their very heavy administrative tasks.
There is one further change which, if these proposals are accepted, His Majesty's Government suggest should follow.
That is, that External Affairs (other than those tribal and frontier matters which fall to be dealt with as part of the Defence of India) should be placed in the charge of an Indian Member of the Viceroy's Executive so far as British India is concerned, and that fully accredited representatives shall be appointed for the representation of India abroad.
By their acceptance of and co-operation in this scheme, the Indian leaders will not only be able to make their immediate contribution to the direction of Indian affairs, but it is also to be hoped that their experience of co-operation in government will expedite agreement between them as to the method of working out the new constitutional arrangements.
His Majesty's Government consider, after the most careful study of the question, that the plan now suggested gives the utmost progress practicable within the present constitution. None of the changes suggested will in any way prejudice or prejudge the essential form of the future permanent constitution or constitutions for India.
His Majesty's Government feel certain that given goodwill and a genuine desire to co-operate on all sides, both British and Indian, these proposals can mark a genuine step forward in the collaboration of the British and Indian peoples towards Indian self-government and can assert the rightful position, and strengthen the influence, of India in the counsels of the nations."

Mr. Montague: Before the Secretary of State leaves the White Paper, will he make clear what is meant in it by the terms "the main political parties" and "the principal political parties"?

Mr. Amery: The main political parties are, of course, the Congress Party and the Moslem League. There are other important major elements in India, like the scheduled castes, the Sikhs, the Christians and so on, but those are the two main political parties. May I, after apologising to those hon. Members who have already read the White Paper and have listened patiently to my reading of it, now proceed with some explanation of the political and constitutional background which has determined the nature of our proposals, and also go somewhat more fully into the details of the actual steps which the Vice-

roy is now taking in order to give effect to them?
As the statement makes clear, the offer of March, 1942, stands in its entirety. That offer was based on two main principles. The first is that no limit is set to India's freedom to decide for herself her own destiny, whether as a free member and partner in the British Commonwealth or even without it. The second is that this can only be achieved under a constitution or constitutions framed by Indians to which the main elements in India's national life are consenting parties. These principles, if I may quote the Prime Minister,
stand in their full scope and integrity. No one can add anything to them and no one can take anything away.
That, I may say, is an affirmation, not only of our own loyal purpose, but of the inescapable facts of the Indian situation. We can only transfer our ultimate control over India to a Government or Governments capable of exercising it. We cannot hand India over to anarchy or to civil war. Our responsibility to the people of India themselves forbid that course, and, indeed, our responsibility to the peace of the world forbids it. On the other hand, we cannot impose a constitution that will break up the moment our authority is no longer there to sustain it. The point was forcibly stated in a recent address by Dr. Ambedkar, the recognized leader of the Scheduled Castes and the Labour Member in the Viceroy's Executive. Arguing that only an Indian constitution "framed by Indians for Indians and with the voluntary consent of Indians" could command the necessary obedience and respect, he went on:
It is useless for the British to frame a constitution for India, which they will not remain to enforce.…I, therefore, am firmly of the opinion that if Indians want Dominion status they cannot escape the responsibility of framing their own constitution.
So far, no progress has been made in that direction, and the internal deadlock, essentially a deadlock as between Hindu India and Moslem India, remains unresolved. We should be wrong, I think, to be unduly impatient with Indian political leaders for their failure to find common ground. The issues at stake are great and the differences of approach to the problem are rooted in convictions sincerely and strongly held. I trust, nevertheless, that the right solution will emerge,


and certainly His Majesty's Government will at all times be anxious to give such assistance as might contribute to its attainment.
Meanwhile, India cannot stand still. Over and above the effort still required for the war against Japan, there is an immense and urgent task of reconstruction, of agricultural and industrial development, of health and education, which cannot wait for the slower processes of political adjustment, but which at the same time calls for the whole-hearted co-operation of every community and section of the Indian people. This cannot be done without some real advance in the political field, some closer and more effective association of the organised political forces in India with the government of their country.
At the present juncture that is only possible, for the reasons I have given, on an interim and provisional basis. It must be without prejudice to the ultimate constitutional settlement, whatever its character. The ideal to which we have always looked forward is that of an All-India Union in which the States would play their full part. At the same time we have also recognised the possibility that agreement between Hindus and Moslems on any form of Indian unity may be unattainable. Any interim advance, therefore, must in no way prejudge the question whether the ultimate settlement is based on a united or a divided India, or affect the existing position or future freedom of choice of the States. That means that it must be within the present constitution, for there is no change in that constitution which would not be regarded as giving a bias in favour of one or other final solution. There can be no question, therefore, of making the Executive responsible, in our Parliamentary sense, to the Legislature. That would at once, in Moslem eyes, imply the control of a unified India by a Hindu majority. Nor can there be any question of doing away with the existing power of the Governor-General to overrule a majority view of his Council, if in his opinion, I quote the words of the Act:
…the safety, tranquillity, or interests of British India are, or may be, essentially affected,
nor of his consequent responsibility to the Secretary of State and to Parliament for its exercise. That power, I should explain,

is a power in reserve, not an instrument m normal use. So long, however, as there is no Indian constitution under which controversial issues can be ultimately resolved, by an accepted democratic procedure, it is a necessary protection for the minorities whether against immediate injury or against decisions which might prejudice the constitutional future to their detriment. It is, in any case, a power, as the terms of the Act clearly state, whose main purpose is to safeguard Indian interests. That applies no less to the Viceroy's duty, in the existing constitutional position, to secure the fulfilment of our obligations towards the States.
In order to emphasise this aspect of the Viceroy's position, as well as for reasons of practical convenience, His Majesty's Government have, in connection with these proposals, decided on a step, not referred to in the statement, but in our opinion of substantial importance. That is to appoint a United Kingdom High Commissioner in India to represent the particular interests of the United Kingdom. Under present conditions there is always the possibility that the Viceroy might on occasion be placed, in dealing with his Council, in the ambiguous and even embarrassing dual position of being both concerned, as head of the Government of India, with the defence of Indian interests and, at the same time, of representing the specific material interests of this country. A United Kingdom High Commissioner, on the other hand, would be free, as in the Dominions, to discuss and negotiate with the appropriate Departments of the Government of India on a footing of complete equality, and also of complete frankness.

Earl Winterton: To whom will this high officer of State be responsible, to the Foreign Office or the Dominions Office, because that is the gist of the whole matter? From whom will he take instructions?

Mr. Amery: That is a matter of practical convenience. Most of his business will, I imagine, be conducted on behalf of Departments like the Board of Trade and the Treasury. The precise question as to who will answer for him in Parliament still remains to be settled, and is deserving of careful consideration.
I have stated the conditions, inherent in the situation, which indicate the only


line on which advance is possible at this moment. I must remind the House of the advance, the real though not always appreciated advance, that has already taken place. When I came to the India Office, five years ago, the Governor-General's Executive Council, by whose majority decisions government is normally carried on, consisted of four European officials and three non-official Indian members. For these last three years it has consisted of four European and 11 Indian members. These Indian members have been drawn from all the main communities and from all parts of India. They are men who have played an active and distinguished part in Indian public life. They responded to the Viceroy's invitation to join him as colleagues not because they are less anxious than any of their fellow-countrymen that India should attain the fullest freedom at the earliest possible moment, but because, both as patriots and as practical men, they believed that they could serve India better by assuming responsibility than by abstention. They have served India well, and the value of their service to India and the constitutional advance it has represented will some day be more fully recognised. Some of them are well known to hon. Members, as, for instance, Sir Ramaswami Mudaliar, who has recently with such eloquence and ability put India on the world map at San Francisco.
Unfortunately, it has to be admitted, and the members of the present Council would be the first to admit it, that their position is weakened by the fact that they do not enjoy the support of the main organised political parties. Neither in the Legislature nor in the Press are they sustained as a body by that measure of co-operative good will and understanding which is so desirable for the carrying out of the great and urgent tasks of reconstruction. Nothing could serve that purpose better than if the leaders of those main organised parties, postponing without prejudice the constitutional issues which have so far divided them, would agree together in giving their support to the formation of a new Executive selected from among the leaders of Indian political life both at the centre and in the provinces.

Mr. S. O. Davies: The right hon. Gentleman is coming to the most important part of his speech. Will he tell us whether

he proposes now to release from prison the leaders of Indian opinion, so that they might be freely consulted and express their desires?

Mr. Amery: I would ask the hon. Member to be a little patient, because I am coming to that in a moment. If the offer which His Majesty's Government now make is accepted, all the portfolios, except that of War Member held by the Commander-in-Chief, will be transferred to Indian hands. The portfolios transferred would include not only the important Home and Finance Departments, but also that of External Affairs, hitherto reserved to the Viceroy in person. This would naturally be accompanied by the appointment of fully accredited representatives abroad and so constitute a definite enhancement of India's international status. The new Executive would thus in fact, though not as the outcome of any formal constitutional process, be made representative of organised Indian political opinion.
In selecting his Council the Viceroy will be concerned to secure a balanced representation of the main communities, including equal proportions of Moslems and Caste Hindus. I understand that he also intends to secure representation for the Scheduled Castes, for the Sikhs and possibly for some other special interests. But the essential condition is the equality in representation between the two main communities. That is indispensable to securing agreement. It must always be remembered that we are dealing, not with an ultimate constitution, but with a provisional, interim working arrangement, aimed at enlisting the maximum of immediate support and the maximum of practical, advance without prejudice to the future.

Mr. Cove: Do I understand that the Congress Leaders will be released unconditionally to consider these proposals, that they will be allowed to come out of prison and to consider the proposals which have been made without there being any binding upon them to accept or reject before they are released?

Mr. Amery: I would ask the hon. Member, as I asked his hon. Friend just now, to be a little patient and to allow me to explain the proposals in my own way.
Whether the principles of arithmetical majority can ever apply in a country with such profound differences and such strong consciousness of those differences as exist in India is another question. Even the American constitution has disregarded those principles in the equal senatorial representation given to every State, great or small. If our proposals for a newly selected Executive at the Centre are accepted we would hope, and indeed it would be a natural corollary, that Ministerial Government would be resumed in the Provinces now under Section 93. We would also hope that following the example set at the Centre, they would be on a coalition basis. Such questions as the holding of elections, whether at the Centre or in the Provinces, will no doubt be discussed at the Conference which the Viceroy has invited to meet him.
Lord Wavell is at this moment informing the Indian public by broadcast of the invitations which he has issued to the leading political figures in India whom he wishes to consult with a view to the selection of the proposed new Executive. These include the gentlemen now holding the office of Premier in a Provincial Government and, in the case of Provinces under Section 93, those who last held that office; the leader of the Congress Party and the deputy leader of the Moslem League in the Central Assembly, the leaders of both those parties in the Council of State, and the leader of the Nationalist Party and of the European Group in the Assembly; they also include Mr. Gandhi and Mr. Jinnah, as the recognised leading personalities in the two main parties; Rai Bahadur Sivaraj to represent the Scheduled Castes, and Master Tara Singh to represent the Sikhs. It is in the light of these discussions that the Viceroy hopes to be able to form a new Executive pledged to the prosecution of the war against Japan and to the great and fruitful task of Indian reconstruction.
There is a matter which I have not so far mentioned, but which I realise is very much in the mind of hon. Members, and that is the release of those still under detention as the result of the 1942 disturbances. I must remind the House that this matter has been, from first to last, dealt with by the Government of India and by the Provincial Governments responsible for law and order. The Pro-

vincial Governments have on their own initiative progressively released the vast majority of detainees, while the Central Government have already released seven out of the fifteen members of the Congress Working Committee. The Viceroy's Council have now recommended the release of the members of the Working Committee still under detention and this recommendation, which has the full approval of His Majesty's Government, is being put into effect. It is possible that it has already been put into effect. The final decision about the remaining detainees in the different Provinces will be left to the new Central and Provincial Governments when formed. These then are the proposals which the Viceroy, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, is laying before India. They owe everything to the initiative of Lord Wavell, to his deep sympathy with Indian aspirations and to his firm belief in India's future greatness. Their actual final form was shaped here in consultation between him and leading members of both of the main parties in the late Coalition. They thus represent an agreed national offer on the part of this country to the people of India.
We earnestly hope that our offer will meet with acceptance. It is the utmost that we ourselves can do pending Indian agreement upon the final constitutional settlement. We believe and hope, however, that, if accepted, the co-operation of Indian statesmen in facing the many practical and urgent issues of India's needs, may help to bring the hour of agreement nearer. The other day Mr. Rajagopalachari, the late Premier of Madras, urged his fellow countrymen to be open-minded about any British offer in order
to use the power and opportunities so obtained to form a habit of common purpose which will cut across classes, creeds and communities…and help us to become a strong united people.
Those are the words of true statesmanship; they will find a ready echo in every quarter in this House.
In any case, the acceptance of our offer opens up a wide field of opportunity for Indians to mould their country's destiny, to build up its prosperity at home and to vindicate its importance in the world scheme of the future. India has played, thanks to the valour of her fighting men, a notable part in the world's struggle for freedom. She feels, and rightly feels, that


both her past efforts and the developments which she envisages entitle her to equal pride of place both among the peoples of the British Commonwealth and among the great nations of the world. We share that desire and, so far as in us lies, are making our offer as a genuine contribution to that end. We are placing India's immediate future in Indian hands. It is for them to take and to shape it.
One last word about these proposals. No one can regard them as concessions wrung from us in the hour of weakness. They are offered in the hour of victory as an earnest of our good will to India and of our genuine desire to help forward the fulfilment of her aspirations as well as the fulfilment of our own traditions and instincts. I might indeed venture to claim that in relation to the present situation in India and in the world, they justify certain words used of this country by Emerson a century ago:
With strength still equal to the time; still wise to entertain and swift to execute the policy which the mind and heart of mankind requires in the present hour.

4.36 p.m.

Mr. Attlee: I think the House will have heard with satisfaction the statement made by the Secretary of State for India and his speech in amplification of the White Paper. We are all conscious when we discuss Indian matters of the importance of doing nothing that will in any way hinder the reaching of agreement between Indian parties. We shall all desire to do our utmost to help the Viceroy in his task. In particular, I think that we shall not help forward a settlement by dwelling on old, unhappy far off things. I would rather look to the future than to the past. The action taken by this Government was, as the Secretary of State has said, the result of consideration given to this matter by the late Government and discussions with the Viceroy. It was clear that Indian politicians were unable to solve what is called the deadlock.
We on these Benches are always anxious, as I think all the House is, for Indian self-government, but we recognise, and everybody ought to recognise, the enormous difficulties of forming a Constitution for a sub-continent of 400,000,000 people of immense diversity of race, language and degree of civilisation. It is just as well to remember that there are

people who do not understand the difficulties. I had an apparently intelligent and well-educated journalist come to talk to me about India, and I mentioned the fact that the Indian population was 400,000,000. He promptly wrote down 40,000,000. I corrected him, but he did not seem to think that it made the slightest difference to the problem. He did not appreciate the difference between 40,000,000 and 400,000,000. That shows; the degree of ignorance there is sometimes among people who come from other countries and talk about India. We all recognise the enormous difficulties.
I believe that it was a tragedy that the offer brought to India on behalf of the late Government by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) was not accepted. As the Secretary of State has said, that offer is still open. It suggested a way of dealing with the future Constitution, but invited variations of that way if Indians themselves could find another, but unfortunately they have not. In these circumstances, it has been thrown back to us to make some step forward. I entirely agree with the Secretary of State that we cannot impose a constitution on India. This attempt which is being made by the Viceroy seems to me to be the only practical line of advance at the present time. The attempt is being made to get Indian leaders to enter the Viceroy's Executive, and by working together on practical problems, to learn to co-operate.
I think that this attempt deserves the support of leaders of Indian public opinion. The proposals go a pretty long way. They carry further the process of Indianisation which, of course, has been going on for decades, but has been greatly accelerated of recent years. They also enhance the status of India in its relationship to other nations, and I should like to echo what the Secretary of State said with regard to Sir Ramaswami Mudaliar. I had the privilege of being a colleague of his at the San Francisco Conference. He impressed everybody by his admirable, states manlike speech. I also had the opportunity of sitting under his able chairmanship. There is no doubt whatever that the representatives of India took a high place among those representatives of so many nations.
This is, of course, only an interim arrangement. We all recognise that at


the present moment we cannot get a complete change of the Indian Constitution, and that we cannot get that change until we get complete agreement in India. I would urge upon all my friends in India to seize this opportunity. I know how much they desire the government of India by Indians, but they also desire—and this is due to the long connection of this country and India—that India should be democratically governed. But the foundation of democratic institutions is tolerance. Their success depends really upon the degree to which majorities and minorities can live together in a community without either oppression, on the one hand, or fear, on the other. Democracy is not just a system of government. It embodies a conception of the way in which human beings regard each other, and the obstacle up till now has not been the difficulty of devising constitutional machinery, but the absence of that common purpose which is the only thing that can give power to the machine and keep it running. I would urge our Indian friends to remember that within the British Commonwealth progress has been effected rather by practice than by theory. Every practical step forward has led to the next step, until full self-government has been achieved. Formal acceptance of constitutional changes and position have generally come after the fact. That is exemplified by the process that led up to the Statute of Westminster.
Here is a great opportunity for the leaders of Indian public opinion and of political parties to show statesmanship, to grasp the opportunity, and to take the practical step forward instead of sitting aloof and troubling too much about theory. I am sure that the decision to release the detainees is a wise one.

Mr. Sorensen: A very belated one.

Mr. Attlee: That may be, but the hon. Member, fortunately for himself, has not had the responsibility for India.

Mr. Sorensen: What has that to do with it?

Mr. Attlee: I do not think the hon. Member quite realises what the conditions in India were three years ago, or, indeed, what the conditions are in India at any time, or he would not speak quite so lightly.

Mr. Sorensen: rose—

Mr. Attlee: I do not want to get into controversy with the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Sorensen: Then the right hon. Gentleman should not say such things about me.

Mr. Attlee: The hon. Member should not interrupt me.

Mr. Sorensen: If I interrupt "belatedly" does that mean that I must have a lecture from my own leader?

Mr. Attlee: If the hon. Member wants to make a criticism and say "very belated," I am certainly entitled to answer it. Up to a few weeks ago I was a Member of His Majesty's Government, and I must take my share of responsibility for what was done by that Government. Although, as a matter of fact, the question of the detainees has been largely a matter in the hands of the Provincial Governments, it is also largely a matter, in the first instance, for the Government of India, which is a Government of Indian representatives and, as we have heard from the Secretary of State, the Viceroy has not had to overrule their decision. I would rather not go into this controversy to-day. I believe in looking forward instead of looking back. I believe we shall all join in wishing the Viceroy success in his efforts, and in the hope that this gathering may be as widely representative as possible, that it may obtain the co-operation of the leading members of all communities in all the Provinces and that, together, they may be able to get an agreement which will lead to another great, practical step forward. I think if you can get that practical step, all working together in the Government, you will then have an infinitely better chance of solving the constitutional problems which must be faced quite apart from this interim arrangement.

4.47 p.m.

Sir John Wardlaw-Milne: First of all, I want to congratulate the Secretary of State and the Viceroy. I think this is a very definite step forward and one which will surely at last show the whole world our anxiety to carry out the plans that were set out in the offer sent out to India some two or three years ago. I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman opposite


that this is not the time for looking back but for looking forward. I say that advisedly because I have a vivid recollection of the discussions and the negotiations which led to the 1935 Act, when the Leader of the Opposition and I sat side by side for some 18 months and were then looked upon by some people as very advanced in our views and as going very much too far in the way of political advance in India. I do not know whether he ever suffered from that charge, but I certainly did. It seems to me that those of us who were then called advanced are now behind when account is taken of the proposals made since and supported by those whose views have changed. That makes me all the more sure that he is right when he says it is no use looking back. The thing now is to look to the future and to hope and believe that this offer will convince the people of India that we have done everything that can be done by this House. There is no further step, as I see it, that we could take to bring about the government of India on the lines offered when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) went out some years ago. There is nothing more that we can do than is contained in this offer. The next and final step must come from India itself.
I am really hopeful at last that, if this offer is accepted, we shall find that the members of the different communities, whose differences are really very deep and very difficult for the European to understand, and who are very afraid of the future in many cases, will be brought together and enabled to get away from the fears which have divided them in the past. It is not going to be easy for them, and, as the right hon. Gentleman said, it is very difficult for the world to understand conditions in India. I should like not only that the House should fully understand them; I wish very much that other nations would understand them. I wish they could be fully understood in the United States for example. I was interested in the right hon. Gentleman's journalistic interview when the gentleman who interviewed him did not seem to appreciate the difference between 40,000,000 and 400,000,000. The only remark that I have ever made in regard to India in the United States which seemed to me to bring home to them what India meant in numbers was when I said that the whole population of the United States

could be added to India every 35 years. That brought home to them the magnitude of the whole problem of India and its teeming millions as nothing else seemed to do. I hope this offer will be accepted, I hope and believe that, if it is accepted, it may be the beginning of understanding between the different communities which may eventually lead to bringing about a scheme of Government which they can accept and work and which will lead to the final triumph of a self governing India within the British Empire.

4.52 p.m.

Mr. Sorensen: I am sure the House will realise that, without casting reflections on the Secretary of State or anyone else, it is rather difficult carefully to analyse a White Paper published only to-day and read to us in the House, not giving us beforehand an opportunity for full reflection. Naturally a White Paper of the significance of this document needs careful and sympathetic reflection. I do not believe it is appropriate at the moment for any of us to rush in either to start criticising or, on the other hand, excessively to applaud the principles contained in it. Therefore, I hope the time is not far distant when we shall have an opportunity, after due reflection, to discuss the matter more fully, and when those who are interested in India will meet again in this place, at no distant future, to turn our attention to this subject. Meanwhile I am sure that all who take a sympathetic interest in India are gratified at the announcement that the remaining detainees are now released.
When I interjected, perhaps too impulsively, not expecting the reaction that came, that it was belated, I assure the House, including my respected Leader, that I had no intention necessarily of casting a reflection on him. But I was certainly expressing the point of view of a number in my own party. The Labour Party Conference last year by an overwhelming majority called for among other things the release of Indian political prisoners. In expressing that comment I was by no means speaking merely for myself. I feel—I do not want this to be taken in an unfortunate or unpleasant manner—that it is regrettable, from the standpoint of the best interests of our country and of India, that the prisoners could not have been released earlier. There may be adequate reasons for not releasing


them earlier. If so, I have never understood why Gandhi should have been so released and why other very influential members of the Working Committee were also released. I do not know, not having been a Member of the Cabinet and not having been introduced into the inner secrets, what other facts there are which would cause me to endorse the continued detention of these men. All I can say is that, as a Member of the House of Commons, I have to go by what information comes to me and others and, on the basis of that informatin, I feel that it is most regrettable that these men, who I think would have followed the lead of Gandhi and not interfered with the war effort, were not released at an earlier date.
I am not unaware of allegations which have been made. I am not unaware of the White Paper issued some time ago making a long series of allegations and attributing to Congress responsibility for the disturbances. I do not believe that it proved the case that it claimed it could prove. There may be other facts than these, but from my own judgment I believe that, if the prisoners could have been released at an earlier date, it might have contributed to general good will and well being and, if there was a danger such as that to which some oblique reference has been made, I should like to know what it is. I equally assure my right hon. Friend that I am not unaware of dangerous possibilities, and it is not my intention at any time to encourage them to become actualities. I entirely endorse the remarks of both right hon. Gentlemen regarding the nature of democracy. Every one of us who is essentially democratic knows full well that there is a wide difference between purely mechanical democracy on the one hand and the essential spirit and content of democracy on the other. Because of that, I not only recognise that we cannot really, in a mathematical way, try to get an exact proportional representation of all parties, but that we have to make allowances for the flux and flow of life and thought which can perhaps bring about some reconciliation in the parties which at times have been so antagonistic. I think, too, that most of the important political movements in India accept that fact in some measure as well as I do. I know, for instance, that Congress, which indeed happens to be the largest political force

in India, has on more than one occasion made it clear that it does not intend to apply merely mathematical and mechanical democracy. Do not let us assume, in laying it down that it is the spirit of democracy that counts, that that is not appreciated in large measure by our Indian friends as well.
The point of the whole Paper is, firstly, that in fact it represents no real advance on what was taken out by my right hon. and learned Friend some two or three years ago, save that in a representative and symbolic way the Viceroy's Council is now to include in all its offices an Indian personality. I think that may have distinct psychological value. I think it is a recognition that Indians are capable of filling, not relatively minor State offices but every office in their State. To that extent I agree that here we have what may be of some psychological value. The essence of the issue, however, lies in the question of how far power is being really transferred or is likely to be transferred. The Viceroy still retains the veto. It depends on how that veto is to be exercised. It also depends, on the other hand, on how far Indian political leaders are prepared to accept that veto and work for its reduction, minimisation or abolition.
We remember the difficulties that occurred when there was a partial acceptance of the Government of India Act in the Provinces. For some time there was considerable discussion and hesitancy regarding the vetoing functions of the Governors of Provinces. Somehow or other that difficulty was overcome. It may be that in this instance the very considerable remaining powers of the Viceroy will be accepted with a similar arrangement by the Indian parties. I do not know whether it will be so, but it can be our hope, because, if one believes we should go as far as we can along the line of mutual understanding and experiment, naturally we do not want to see bitter conflict, recrimination and hostility either between the Indian parties or between them and ourselves. It should be made clear, however, that undoubtedly the goal of the Indian parties is, ultimately or soon, complete political independence and responsibility, and unless they see in and through this offer the possibility of advancing towards that goal, there may be many serious difficulties yet to be overcome.
There are two other things I wish to say. First, although I no not want to suggest that this offer is made under duress, it certainly has a considerable bearing on the war against Japan. For that reason, if for no other, if we could provide in India the example of the Indian people possessing freedom not only to govern themselves but to frame their own Constitution, such an example of democracy would have a profound effect upon the whole of the Eastern world. It would be invaluable again in the psychological sense. The other thing is this. Naturally it is not for us as British people to lay down precisely what Indians should do regarding this offer. It is for them to decide. Our task is to remove obstacles, difficulties and misunderstandings. Therefore, one awaits with hope a response from India that will be encouraging. In the meantime I will merely say that all of us are glad, with varying degrees of emphasis, that at least something has emerged from the conversations that have taken place between the Viceroy and Members of His Majesty's Government. I pay a tribute to Lord Wavell for his very earnest attempt in more ways than one to demonstrate political vision and a really humane interest. I believe that in many respects Lord Wavell has made his mark in India. Whether we agree or disagree with some of the proposals he has made, we appreciate him as a human being, disinterested and devoted, who is really trying to meet the great needs and problems of India in the right spirit.
We have to await the response from India. I hope most earnestly it will be encouraging. I hope that, despite the drastic criticism that will undoubtedly come, we shall nevertheless find the Indian people will feel that this may be an offer that can be interpreted in a constructive way. We have yet to see what will happen. As far as lies within my own humble amateur power, I will do all I can to see that India realises that the people of this country are anxious for India to move forward to real political responsibility and independence, and that at an early time, out of all the difficulties and tensions that have existed up to now, the great people of India, with their mighty history and great promise, shall be friends with this country on the basis of mutual freedom and mutual respect.

5.5 p.m.

Mr. Graham White: I wish to associate myself with the good will which hon. Members have expressed to Lord Wavell and to assure him, if assurances are necessary, that the House of Commons and the people of this country, whose purpose with regard to India has been decided and will not change, wish him all success in carrying out the new offer that has been made and hope most sincerely that he will receive full co-operation from all elements in India in what is a practical step. I am very glad a statement has been made today, because there has been some anxiety, and the fact that there have been anxiety and delay has led to the belief that some differences of opinion had arisen and that the opinion of the people of this country might have changed.
In one sense the most important thing which the Secretary of State said was that the offer of 1942 remains unchanged. That is so. It should be recognised in India that that is the purpose of our people, and that if we cannot succeed in bringing India into the same freedom as we enjoy ourselves, we shall have failed in our mission as a liberating Power. That is the unchangeable purpose of Parliament and of our people. We do not take the view that when that day comes political separation will accentuate the difficulties between our two countries. On the contrary, we see a very wide and complementary field in which we shall work in the closest possible association. The Commonwealth would be enriched by the inclusion of India on the same terms as ourselves. It opens out a wonderful vision. There are many things in which India and Britain are essential to each other. The maintenance of stability in South East Asia, the pressing needs of the great population of India, the development and industrialisation of India—in all these matters there is need for cooperation on the friendliest basis.
I do not know that the proposals announced to-day will meet with unanimous approval from everybody in India; I am afraid there will be intractables here and there; but those proposals are a practical step which everybody can take at once in order to work up to the final stages of the transfer of power. I think that for a considerable time there has been growing dissatisfaction in India with the somewhat sterile rut in which the


purely communal aspect of affairs has been stabilised, and a very encouraging effort has been made by different people who are working wholeheartedly and sincerely to try to get things on to a broader basis and to make a more practical approach to the difficulties of the economic and political situation. I join in welcoming these proposals. I sincerely hope they will meet with a practical and immediate response from India, which I am sure will be met more than half way from this country.

5.9 p.m.

Major-General Sir Frederick Sykes: I heartily endorse all that has been said in regard to the step which the Secretary of State and the Government have taken. This is a very momentous occasion, and I only wish there were far more hon. Members present. I have long wished that the offer which the right hon. Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) took out to India two or three years ago could have been put into effect, but as it was not possible to do that, I feel that the statement made by the Secretary of State has reassured the people of this country and Indian opinion that that offer is still open and that the statement to-day is an addition to the offer made at that time. I hope and believe that Indian parties of all classes and creeds will accept the statement in the spirit in which it has been made. This statement, which we have had so little time to think over, gives the impression of absolute sincerity in its hope and belief that we are trying to do the right thing in the right way.
The subject of India is so vast that one dares not go into any details. I hope that people in this country will gradually come to understand the immense importance and perplexity of the Indian position. As the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition said, there is throughout the world absolutely abysmal ignorance of the Indian position. I hope that not only in this country but in foreign countries that ignorance will gradually be cleared away. Without understanding in other countries it will be difficult for India to take advantage of this great step, and unless it is understood here it will be more difficult to support the efforts made by Indians in India. I have heard doubt expressed that it may perhaps be too great

a step that foreign affairs should be undertaken by Indians. I am not of that opinion. As the Secretary of State said, the recent delegation to this country and the delegation to San Francisco have shown the great weight and sense of responsibility which Indian leaders have been able to express. I hope and believe that this step will be accepted in India in the spirit in which it is made. I am sure it will meet with the greatest success if the right people are appointed. They can be found in numbers in India to-day.
It is now some 12 years since I left India, but I have tried to follow events there as closely as possible. I have a very large number of friends in India from whom, I am glad to say, I still hear. I hope this offer will be accepted, and, remembering that the sort of democracy which is suitable for our political organisation is not necessarily suitable for all other countries, I believe that by these proposals we can make a great step forward which is not necessarily in conformity with the democratic principles which we have here. In conclusion, I wish Lord Wavell, an old friend of mine in India, the greatest success in the task which he is shouldering and I hope he will be completely successful. I want also to congratulate the last Government and the present Government on the steps they have taken.

5.14 p.m.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Central Nottingham (Sir F. Sykes) has spoken with great knowledge of India and, we all know, with great love for India. I would join with him in saying how thankful I am that the Government have been able on the last working day of this Parliament to make this great pronouncement, so full of promise for India and for the Commonwealth of the Empire, and I believe we may say for the peace and well-being of the whole world. I hope that our friends in India, when they consider this White Paper, will try to look at it in the spirit in which the Secretary of State has spoken this afternoon, and the spirit in which the Leader of the Opposition has joined in commending these proposals to India.
I am sure that if the good will that has been present this afternoon in this House, of which every speaker has given


evidence, could be realised by the leaders of India and the people of India they would be able to interpret this pronouncement of the Viceroy in the same spirit. It is quite easy to look at it as politicians sometimes do, when they find points here and there where they would like improvement or where they feel there is need for change, but it is an immense step forward in the right direction, in the direction of full freedom. We want to see in India freedom for all, for every race and religion and for the vast multitude of unenfranchised Indians who are suffering from want and poverty. We do not want it to be a negative freedom—just a freedom from want and fear—but a positive freedom—freedom for development of India's highest self, and of the very best that is in every man and woman. That is surely the aim that we have and that all patriotic Indians must share.
It has been very well said this afternoon, that we do not want our friends in India, who are rightly eager to have all the democratic privileges that we here enjoy, in adopting the forms of democracy to lose the spirit which alone can make democracy work for the good of all. We have seen in this Parliament how it is possible for minorities to give expression to a point of view, which is not the view either of the Government or of the great majority of the House, and we have seen how it has been possible for the forms of Parliamentary democracy not merely to provide that the will of the majority shall prevail, but to provide a place for the minority as participants in the life of the nation and of Parliament, not merely by criticism but by helpful and positive co-operation. It is that, surely, which we need to see in India and in every country in which democracy is to have a helpful development—the highest political form of civilisation that we have yet been able to realise. It is a freedom like that to which we look forward for India.
We are proud to think that this House is sometimes spoken of as the Mother of Parliaments. We have been able to help come into being Parliaments in other parts of the Empire and other parts of the world. It is a great thing if this House can be the mother of free institutions. That is what we look forward to in the future of India. There was a time, only a few weeks ago, when on a happy evening Mr. Speaker lit the lamp that shines

in the tower above this House, whenever we are deliberating after nightfall, and in memorable words he reminded us that it was the symbol of freedom, the symbol of the lamp of freedom that this House has kept burning all through these difficult years of war. It is more than a lamp for ourselves. It is a light that we want to share as widely as possible with our friends and our fellow citizens of the Commonwealth of the Empire in India, and with the wider human family without. I believe that to-night we are helping to pass on that light, and we ask our friends in India to join with us that we may share it with them and with others. Freedom is not a selfish possession for ourselves. It is something to be shared.

5.22 p.m.

Dr. Haden Guest: I desire first of all to pay tribute to the eloquence, sincerity and enthusiasm of the last hon. Member's speech, which I was delighted to have had the privilege of hearing, and to say that although I am sorry there are not more Members present here on this occasion it does not deprive this being what in fact it is—a great State occasion. This announcement is a great State announcement and I am glad it was made simultaneously here and in India. That in itself, I think, has its own symbolic importance.
When we in this House are talking about democracy and when we are considering the proposals that have been put forward for consideration by representatives of the great parties in India, and ask ourselves whether these are democratic or not, we should really get back to an understanding, which is not very difficult, of what the simple meaning of democracy is. Democracy is surely the method of government by the people. It does not necessarily mean the kind of institutions that we British people have found suitable for ourselves. Those institutions, I have always thought, do not always suit other nations; quite clearly, history shows us that. We are now considering the great conglomeration of peoples who are moving towards becoming a nation of united India, and if this great conglomeration of peoples can find for themselves means of control and expression of their circumstances and their lives, that is for them the democracy which they are seeking. I welcome these proposals which have been put forward, because I believe that


they do give the Indian peoples the opportunity of framing their own democracy if they will do so.
As I listened to the great statement by the Secretary of State for India my mind went back a very long time to the first political meeting which I ever attended when I was a small boy—I am not sure if I had got out of knickerbockers—when I was taken by my father in Manchester to listen to a speech by Mr. Charles Bradlaugh, once a distinguished Member of this House and always a distinguished advocate of justice for India and redress of the grievances of India. I do not suppose I understood everything that was said, in fact I am sure I did not, but I still remember the view I had of this magnificent old man with his white hair, his burning cheeks, his tremendous eloquence as he smote the table before him, and how he declaimed on the necessity of Britain shouldering her real responsibilities, redressing the wrongs of India, and putting right the social conditions of India. So that my awakening to political life was, in a sense, this awakening to an understanding of this tremendous problem in India, and I know that in India at the present time—because I had it from an Indian friend of mine, Mulk Raj Anand, not long ago—the name of Bradlaugh is revered as one of the first workers for the freedom of India.
I do want to ask my Indian friends, of whom I have many, when they are thinking over this offer to think not only of the political structure of India but also to think of those tremendous economic and social problems to which my attention has always been more turned than to the purely political side. I refer to the poverty and the starvation in India, the fact that the expectation of life in India is only 27 years, that the land of India is so poor because the peasants cannot afford to put back the dung of animals into the land; they have to burn it because in some places at least it is their only fuel. There are in India tremendous drawbacks and conditions which only Indians at this time can possibly alter. The social and economic conditions are things which the Indians will now have completely in their own hands if they accept this offer.
May I also pay another tribute to that very great man, Field-Marshal Lord Wavell, who himself has contributed very

largely indeed to the proposal which is now brought forward? That great soldier philosopher is just the type of man to appeal to India. I am sure that that great gesture of his at the time of the Bengal famine when he left the Viceregal Palace, went down into Bengal and moved about without any escort at all among the people to see what was going on, must have impressed them very deeply indeed. I know that Field-Marshal Wavell, the Viceroy, has put this question of the social conditions and the health of India as the first among his numerous preoccupations.
I do not want to say more. I wanted to pay my tribute to this great act of State which has this day been performed. I do not want to descend into any party questions as to whom it is due or to whom it is not due. I only say that I believe it will always stand as a great achievement in the record of Parliament, that we have by this act opened the door to freedom for India.

5.29 p.m.

Mr. Colegate: As one who has studied the Indian question and has paid many visits to India, I join in paying my tribute to what the last hon. Member has called a great act of State which we have heard announced to-day. No doubt much is due to the great Viceroy, Lord Wavell, but I do not think on this occasion we should omit to pay our tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for India. He has played a great part in this matter, as is obvious from the White Paper. During the past few years we have seen him steering what at times must have been an extremely difficult course, without ever using a word which could worsen the situation, and always trying to advance the purposes which are the purposes of all parties in this House—the advancement of India to the stature of nationhood and of self-government. I hope that people here and in India will not forget the credit that is due to my right hon. Friend.
It is unquestionably up to India now to make some response to this offer. I want to emphasise that point of view. There may have been a time for Indian criticism of this country. We do not want to rake up the past on this occasion, but I must confess that when I was in India I was frequently very disappointed, in discussions with my Indian friends, at


the absence of constructive proposals. They criticised the situation very ably—there are some very keen analytical minds in India—but when one said—as one was entitled to say—"Well, I can assure you the people of the United Kingdom are genuinely desirous of helping you towards self-government. What are your proposals?" I never once heard a constructive proposal that would have been accepted by the main political parties of India as a unanimous solution. One must recognise that, and one is entitled to say to India, "Give us your genuine constructive objections to these proposals. If you do not like them, tell us so, and do not merely tell us that you do not like them, but tell us what you suggest as an alternative." It really is urgent that Indian leaders should get together and try to solve some of these questions, so that they can present to us, if they do not accept these proposals, an agreed solution of their own. In my opinion, we should incur a grave responsibility before the bar of history, if we did not present these proposals.
Let me make it clear that it is the opinion of most people here, and of many of my friends in the United States and elsewhere, that the Indian leaders will incur a very grave responsibility indeed before the bar of history if they do not come out now with a constructive responsibility, and take, with any help we may give them, the large strides which they can now take towards the development of Indian nationhood. There is no time and no room for Indian suspicions of British motives in this matter, and I hope, most sincerely, that this act of State to-day is the first step in a new chapter for India. We shall devote time and attention not to controversies, but to competition between the parties concerned to see who can make the most constructive proposals towards that end which we all desire to see, and which will ensure that India shall take her place as one of the great nations of the world.

5.34 p.m.

Professor A. V. Hill: My hon. Friend who has just spoken paid a tribute to the Secretary of State in which I would like to join. Two days ago, I received a letter from an eminent Indian statesman in which he said:
I expect no praise, I am indifferent to abuse, but I do not like obstruction.

My right hon. Friend this afternoon, as on other occasions, has been subjected to obstruction; he has usually had little praise; he has had a great deal of abuse; but he has held steadfastly, with high courage, on his course; and we see now what I think he may in years to come feel, if he does not now, is the crowning act of his life. The few of us who are here this afternoon—and the small number present does not represent any lack of interest on the part of the British people in India—feel, as the right hon. and gallant Member for Central Nottingham (Major-General Sir Frederick Sykes) said, that this is indeed a momentous occasion. Though we are few, as lovers of India, lovers of Indians, even if we know little of their country, we are proud to be present this afternoon to take our small part in a great act of statesmanship.
I was delighted to find that in this matter I am in cordial agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for North Islington (Dr. Guest). We sometimes differ—I think we differed on the subject of a Second Front—but on many subjects we are agreed, and we agree in welcoming this great Measure. We also agree in protesting against a misuse of the word "democracy," and we agree, I think, in the deep feeling of hope with which we look forward to the happiness which may result from what we are discussing this afternoon.
It may have been chance—or, to use a phrase of the Secretary of State once grossly misrepresented, an act of God—that my first halting speech in this House, five years ago, was made on the subject of India. It is certainly chance, and my good fortune in catching your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that my last speech, which I fear is almost equally halting and, I hope, will be equally short, is on the same subject. I know my hon. Friend the Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. Harvey) feels moved, as I do, not only by the occasion, but by the fact that in his case, too, this is the last time he will address this Assembly. In those five years much has happened in India, as elsewhere. The chief thing which has happened in India, apart from the outward things of the war, has been the growth of a wide conviction among thinking people, here as well as there, that the future welfare of India, and its peoples, as a proud, happy,


prosperous and contented nation, claiming its rightful equality among the other great nations of the world, depends not only, and perhaps not even chiefly, on political, constitutional, and legal structures, but on a common determination of the ordinary men, of the people of India themselves, to apply all the resources of modern civilisation, of modern science and of modern technique, to improving the lot of the common man: by better nourishment, better health, better transport, better housing, less ignorance, less illiteracy and less miserable poverty.
Much, indeed, has been done in India to set her on the road to this greater happiness, health and prosperity. I, for one, would do anything I could to praise those who have worked for the positive welfare of India, often with little encouragement, during these years. A tribute to the Indian Medical Service should be paid for the vast change it has produced in the health of India, vast in spite of the appalling lack of health that still exists. But much of the good which was done for the material welfare and education of India came from outside and above, not, as in our own community, from within. The urge, the inspiration and the aspiration must come from within the people themselves; it is not until the common man feels that he has some personal responsibility for his own fate and the fate of his friends and neighbours, that the process of planning the full development of a country can really proceed very far. So we come back, as we are bound to come, to the political constitutional and legal structure without which that personal responsibility of the common man cannot fully develop.
In those who bear the great responsibility of planning for the development of India there is a profound conviction, both of the vast potentialities of human welfare available there if the methods of modern civilisation are applied, whole heartedly and with all round co-operation, to the enormous natural and human resources of India; and of the vast potentialities of misery, poverty and disaster if these methods are not applied, if there is not co-operation, and if things go wrong. There is, I know, an equally profound conviction among those who hold this responsibility that the whole hearted application of those methods of

modern civilisation will not be possible until the present political tangle is unravelled. Now is the critical time; now is the time to gain the confidence and collaboration which all who love India and the Indian people know must be forthcoming if happiness is to be won. They will be glad that this try has been made once again. I know enough of those, British and Indians, who bear this responsibility to be sure that this new try is being made in utter sincerity. Nobody who knows Lord Wavell can think otherwise: the Indian people realise his complete sincerity and his love for India. This new try is not being made as a final stage, not as a thing in itself; but as a step in planning the nationhood of India and a better life for its peoples.

5.44 p.m.

Mr. Cove: We are discussing in a rather thin House, and under very great difficulties, one of the most vital questions that can be brought before us. It involves not only the destiny of the British people and the British Empire, but the destiny of the world. It is clear, I should imagine, from what has happened in Western Europe during the last few years, with its economic devastation and with the dark outlook, economically, that is confronting the people of Europe, that world politics will shift to the East, to India, with its vast economic resources, as yet almost untouched and undeveloped. I will not go into the reasons why I believe they have been left undeveloped, but there they are, vast material and economic resources lying embedded, as it were, in the soil of India. There, too, are the teeming millions, not 40,000,000 but 400,000,000 people, who, if they had any modicum of purchasing power, would be a vast market for the production that modern industry can provide and which even up-to-date agriculture can provide. Therefore, we have to look at this problem of India in the light of world developments that lie immediately before us.
I do not mind saying quite frankly—some of my hon. Friends may be surprised at this, but I hope they will not be offended—that I want to maintain the friendship, and, indeed, the sentiment and good will, of the Indian people within the British Commonwealth of Nations. I have a sort of resentment—it may be fear, I do not know—but I certainly have a sort of sentimental resentment against any


encroachment of American Imperialism in the sphere for which we have been responsible for 200 years. I am putting it quite bluntly; I am not important enough to do any damage. I do not want the Indian people, either in sentiment, in feeling or in trade, to go to any other orbit than the orbit of the British Commonwealth of Nations. Hence we are now discussing an immense vital issue, not only for the welfare of the British Commonwealth of Nations but also for the future well-being of mankind.
One is under great difficulties discussing this question in a thin House, and with the White Paper only just issued. It is true I had it before the right hon. Gentleman read it, but a quarter of an hour is not sufficient time to study such a document. I must enter this protest. Having regard to the magnitude of this problem, to the vital issues involved, it would have been fairer, and better in the interests of what we all desire, that this White Paper should have been issued at least a few days ago, so that we should have had an opportunity of studying it. I am not an expert on Parliamentary procedure, but I have been here a long time, and I should have thought it was common sense to have trusted to the good will and reasonable attitude of the House of Commons, and to have produced this White Paper in sufficient time to enable us to study it, and give a considered judgment. As it is, we have to give, as I can only give, an interim judgment.

Mr. Amery: May I explain that it was impossible for a good many reasons—as the hon. Member knows a great deal has been happening in the last few weeks—to get this matter settled before Lord Wavell left? It was also impossible for Lord Wavell to make his announcement before he had had time to make certain arrangements in India. The result of all that was that this statement could only be made to-day, and clearly it had to be made before the House finally came to an end. I should gladly have seen this announcement made several weeks ago, but, unfortunately, the actual course of events here, and Lord Wavell's necessities after his return to India, brought us to the point that we could only do it to-day. I am sure that the hon. Member will realise that it is only fair to the Indian public that the announcement should be made in India by Lord Wavell, at the

same time as it is made here. I am sorry that Parliament was not given fuller opportunity of considering this matter before the Debate, but circumstances have, at any rate, enabled us to make it in the last hours, and I think, if I may say so, not an unworthy conclusion to a great Parliament.

Mr. Cove: I accept that. I quite realise the difficulties. I only wish to emphasise that it makes it imperative upon me to say that I can only give, as a humble back bencher, an interim decision, or rather an interim opinion, upon this. After further study there may be reservations I shall wish to make, but my reservations will always have in the background the fact that I want, as I have previously stated, to see the well-being of these teeming masses of Indians realised. I also want to see an even closer and more intensive friendliness between ourselves and the Indian people. That interim judgment does not involve, from my point of view, a complete break with our Indian comrades and friends. Before I come to a final judgment I would like to know—I want to be perfectly fair—what the leaders of Congress will say about this.

Earl Winterton: May I ask the hon. Member why should the leaders of Congress only be mentioned? Have the Moslem League no right in the matter; have the Sikhs no right in the matter?

Mr. Cove: I have not finished. I want to know what the Indian Congress leaders are thinking and what the Moslem League leaders are thinking, but the Indian Congress leaders have been in gaol and the Moslem League leaders have not; that is the vital difference. Nehru, Azad and Gandhi, at one time all the Working Committee of Congress, have been in gaol, and I have emphasised that I want to know their opinions because they have been in gaol, because I have been unable to know what they have been thinking.
I shall not go into the past except to say that it has indeed surprised me—and I have tried to follow events as closely as I could, and to read every word that has been uttered by the leaders of the Indian Congress—that not one word can I find of an authoritative character for instance, on whether Congress was against us and pro-Japanese. Indeed


there is plenty of evidence to show that the leaders of Congress were anti-Fascist, prepared to fight Fascism when certain prominent figures of public repute in this country were supporting it. I want to see the Congress people out, with freedom of discussion. I ask the right hon. Gentleman, for instance, how far the release of the prisoners will extend. It is not only the leaders of the Working Committee, etc., who are concerned, but those other hundreds and thousands who are in gaols up and down India. Will they be freed? Will there be a general release? It would be a grand thing for that good feeling, that good attitude, that emotional response which we profoundly desire, if not only the Congress leaders, but all those unknown men and women were released. There are some others, like Sarat Bose of Calcutta. In brief, I hope that there will be a general release, that those who have been put in gaol will be swarming out, in order that we might have what I would call a favourable psychological background for the next step forward.
We are not now debating a Bill or anything of that kind; we are discussing a White Paper which we have not had a long time to consider. As far as I have been able to size it up, looking at certain sentences rather carefully, and considering them over and over again in my mind, I am not quite sure whether we, at this end, are even now flexible enough. Even now, from such statements as I read, we appear to be rigidly fastened to the 1942 offer, commonly called the Cripps offer. It may have been wrong for the Indian leaders to have rejected that offer. I am not now discussing that. I could put the case the other way round on another occasion, but the simple fact is that Congress did not accept the 1942 offer. There seems to me no hope given in this White Paper that there might be flexibility, that there might have been an adjustment in the time that has elapsed since 1942. I hope the Government will find itself in a position to be flexible. I want the counterpart of that. Not only do I hope that our Government on this side will be flexible in its approach and interpretation and its application of the 1942 offer; I hope and pray that it may be possible for the flexibility we desire to come also from India. I hope that

will be so, but we cannot expect flexibility and adjustment to the new situation in India unless we ourselves are also flexible and adjustable.
I end as I began. We must be flexible. We must meet the new Indian situation, because I profoundly believe that a Britain of 40,000,000 to 45,000,000 people, with her whole resources, facing the great new world, facing a Russia, facing an America, cannot live, and move, and have her being, unless she maintains the good will, the friendship, the co-operation, of all those members of the British Commonwealth. And India is the linchpin. India is a star. We must have an enlightened policy, we must have a progressive policy, we must have a policy which will give the political freedom which is the prerequisite of economic development. India, after all, is a sea of poverty. After 200 years of British rule, the average life in India, as my hon. Friend says, is 26 years. The poverty is not due to lack of economic and material resources, but to the fact that these resources have not been developed. Let us frankly accept the responsibility of that 200 years' rule. Let us say that that is not good enough, that that is not the meaning and purpose of the British Empire and the British Commonwealth in the new world that is to be. In that new world, what faces us must be the complete development of India, and India's resources, in friendship and co operation with Britain.

6.2 p.m.

Earl Winterton: I have no moral right to take part in this Debate, because I have heard only three of the speeches, but I have a practical right, because I have had a longer connection with India than any other Member here. I was for seven years at the India Office; I was a member of the Joint Committee on the Government of India, a member of the Joint Committee on the Government of Burma, and a member of I forget how many other Committees. I rise to put a view which needs to be put. I hope that the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) will not think that I have any ulterior object in saying this, because I am quite sincere.
The hon. Gentleman made a very sincere speech, with which many of us on all sides of the House would be in strong


agreement. He is correct in saying that it is no credit to us that after so many years the standard of living in India is so low, but he should appreciate the reason why it is so low. I am not sure that he would disagree with me. It is partly, at any rate, because the British Government throughout those years have refused to interfere with the manners and customs of the Indian people, which make a healthy life impossible. For example, it is only quite recently that the appalling practice of child marriage, with its result of child conception, was, at any rate, partly dealt with by the Hindu people themselves, and reduced. I would commend to the hon. Gentleman the speech of his colleague, the hon. Member for North Islington (Dr. Guest). I see no reason why this House should not be the temple of truth, and, therefore, I say that the greatest source of detriment to the economic and social progress of India has been the manners and customs, and to a certain extent the religion, of the Indian people. Any Moslem, if he were present, would agree.
I turn to another matter, which is at the back of all these things. I have heard ad nauseam for nearly 40 years, the kind of speeches which have been made to-day—"We must do something for India. We must give India economic freedom. We must give India actual freedom." Also, I have heard speeches from this side of the House—although I am thankful to say that they are not so frequent now—to the effect that it was impossible to give India freedom. There is only one thing which prevents India governing herself. That is the lack of agreement between Moslems and Hindus. The Sikhs, in my judgment, could not stand out from any reasonable agreement between Hindus and Moslems, and the Depressed Classes would have sufficient political power to make their wishes felt.
I now desire to mention a very unpleasant impression in the minds of Moslems generally. Again and again, my Moslem friends have said to me, "Why is it that the Socialist Party invariably takes the part of the Hindus against the Moslems, and of the Jews against the Arabs in the Middle East?" They have in some cases made the most rude suggestions as to the connection between the Socialist Party and the leaders of the Hindus. I have denied such suggestions,

because I know that they are not true. Again, I would commend the speech of the hon. Member for North Islington. Why are hon. Gentlemen opposite so imbued with the idea that the only party in India is the Hindu Party? Do they think that Islam is not democratic? Do they think that Hinduism and Socialism are the same thing? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman who has just joined the Labour Party will get up and reply. He is very fond of the Hindus.

Mr. Cove: The Noble Lord is being pugnacious: I did not want to be pugnacious. I think the Noble Lord has destroyed the atmosphere.

Earl Winterton: There has been an assumption in all the Debates on this question for the last 20 years, that the Hindu leaders represent the people of India. That is unfair to the Moslems and to the Depressed Classes. I object to the hon. Gentleman saying that I have destroyed the atmosphere.

Mr. Cove: I treat the Noble Lord's speech as the true Tory opinion.

Earl Winterton: I would be entitled to say that I think the hon. Gentleman's speech the true Hindu opinion, but I do not. Why is it that in this controversy they always take the point of view of the Hindu Congress, and never the point of view of the Moslems? I want to put the Moslem case—not that I have any religious sympathy with Islam, because I am a member of the Church of England; but, since the Hindu view is always put from the Socialist benches, it is fair that the Moslem case should be put from here. Mr. Jinnah has again and again put forward a policy which, whether you commend it or not, should be considered by opinion in India. He has, again and again, asked for consideration of that policy by the Hindu leaders. Nothing that can be done with this White Paper, nothing that the Government of India can do, nothing that the House of Commons can do, can lead to any solution until the leaders of the Hindu Congress and the leaders of the Moslem League come to terms. It is not a fact that all Hindus follow Congress or that all Moslems follow the Moslem League; but without those bodies coming to terms there can be no settlement. Until recently, the Moslems had no leader, whereas the Hindus have


plenty of leaders to put their point of view—they were on a perfect wicket. But that is no longer true.

Mr. Cove: One of the things that heartens me is that the Government do not favour Pakistan.

Earl Winterton: There again the hon. Gentleman is taking the Hindu point of view. He goes out of his way to attack the Moslem League, thereby associating the Socialist Party with the Hindu Congress. Everybody who has been out there, and every right hon. Gentleman in this House, knows that until there is agreement between Mr. Jinnah and the Congress leaders all the rhodomontade talked year after year, about giving self-government to India is useless. It is going to be as difficult for them to come to terms, as it was to get the Southern Irish Catholics and the Protestants in Southern Ireland to come to terms. Everybody knows that; so why should you not tell the truth occasionally, instead of having the kind of talk that we have had on both sides of the House for the last 30 years?
I hope that this proposal of the Government will lead to something. It is as much the duty of Mr. Jinnah and the Moslem League as of "our Congress leaders"—to quote the hon. Gentleman opposite—to come to terms. Unless they come to terms—and nobody knows it better than the right hon. Gentleman—this proposal will fall, like everything else. If it does fall, I beg hon. Gentlemen opposite not to get up and say, like "The Times" and the "News Chronicle." "We must do something." Let them put the blame on the right shoulders—that is, on the leaders of opinion in India, for their failure to come to agreement. I have been told, both by Hindus and by Moslems, that they do not believe that these people will ever come to terms. Nobody except a few old diehards, who are going out of this House at the General Election, wants to deprive India of self-government, but I have been told by people who know both Hindus and Moslems that they will never agree.
A very distinguished Moslem, whose words I would like to quote exactly, but cannot, said to me not long ago, "Why do you suppose that there will ever be agreement without Pakistan? India was never a geographical combination until

the British came. Why do you ask us to submit to Hindu domination?" I said that we did not. He said, "Yes, that is inherent in the speeches made by Socialists and Tories and everybody else, that the Moslems have to be in permanent subjection, because we are a minority. We will never have it—and we will never have it in Palestine either." I say that is a very damaging statement. We, in the House of Commons, try to keep a level course; we do not try to influence anybody else's course. But that is the position in the minds of these people, and we should press them from all parts of the House, leaving aside our party quarrel, until we can get them to see what, indeed, the whole House is agreed upon—that we really mean that we are going to give them the widest measure of self-government and that it is up to them to operate that Measure.
I must make this very cynical but true observation. There are leaders in India, not only "our Congress leaders," but, I am sorry to say, some of the Moslems as well, who do not believe that they will hold their position for a moment if the British leave India. They think they would be knocked out by people who dislike Congress because they think it is the engine of big business—people who are more in accord with the kind of ideas that prevail in Leftist circles here and on the Continent. Other people think that they will attain an even more violent end, and we all know the famous quotation, which has been used before in this House, from a great Sikh leader in the Punjab who said that after the British left India there would not be a rupee or a virgin left in Bengal. Quite a lot of other people in Northern India would take advantage of any confusion, if there was a breakdown after the British left India.
The real appeal that should go out from this House is not an attack upon these proposals, or an attack upon the right hon. Gentleman, because I think the Minister should be commended for his conduct of affairs. The real appeal should go to the leaders of India—Moslem, Hindu and Depressed Classes—to come together and find out on what they are prepared to agree. They have never done it yet; all they have done has been to abuse one another and attack the British Government. There have been times when we have been weak. To-day, we are in a


very powerful position, and it is when we are most powerful, that we are most willing to do things for people not so powerful as ourselves. There is a measure of agreement between my hon. Friend who has just spoken and myself, which would not have been possible between a Tory and a Socialist 25 years ago. The ball is at India's feet. Whether she will take it or not, I do not know. She has had a number of opportunities in the last 20 years and, invariably, has failed to take them. If she does not take this opportunity, I do not know what the future holds for her, but you cannot ignore the rights of other classes besides Hindus. Islam, to-day, both in India and the Middle East, though not antagonistic to the Allies, or the Empire, is determined to see that, vis-à-vis Hindus and Jews, she shall have a fair deal, and a proper position in the world.

EX-MEMBERS (VISITS TO HOUSE)

6.19 p.m.

Sir Ernest Shepperson: I rise with considerable diffidence because the Debate has been on a very high level and I am now bringing it down to a very homely one. Over 20 years ago, I rose from my seat and craved the indulgence of the House for my first attempt to address it. I rise now to crave a similar indulgence for the last time that I shall ever address this House. When I sought that indulgence so many years ago, I tried, so far as I could, not to be controversial. What I am going to say now will, definitely, not be controversial. To-morrow, we file past you, Mr. Speaker, and shake hands. One hundred and fifty or more of us will shake hands with you for the last time. We leave this House for all time, and I think I can speak for many of my colleagues who were at a certain festival last night in saying that the years I have spent in this House—I have been here 23 years—have given me, not only a deep regard and affectionate memory, but an affection not confined to those hon. Members of my own Party but extended to hon. Members of the opposite Party. I have also a regard and affection for this building. I do not want to go out of this building to-morrow and feel that, for all time, it is a place to which I cannot come as of right.
The appeal which I make on this occasion—and I do not know whether it should be to you, Mr. Speaker, or to the Prime Minister, or the Minister of Works—is this. Can those responsible, in the future, give me some place to which I can come in this House as a right? As an ex-Member, I believe I am allowed in the Members' Gallery and that is all. In that place, there are no seats, and I cannot stand up. A new Chamber is to be constructed, with new rooms for the use of hon. Members and officers of the House. The application I make is this. When that House is built, will those responsible be able to set aside one room for the use of ex-Members to which ex-Members may come as of right, without being regarded as trespassers or mere visitors? If the authorities can grant that right, they will earn the gratitude of every hon. Member of this House.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

SERVICES PERSONNEL (POLITICAL RIGHTS)

6.24 p.m.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Major Mott-Radclyffe.]

Mr. Driberg: I hope I shall not be out of Order in referring very briefly to the preceding Debate and in saying how deeply moved I am sure we all were by the speech we have just heard. I hope it is not presumptuous in me, as a comparatively junior and very unimportant back-bench Member of the House, to say that I know that we shall deeply miss our older friends and collagues, to whatever party they belong.
The Debate, with the exception of some liveliness towards the end, had quite a Coalition atmosphere; and, in this final Adjournment Debate of this long Parliament, although I shall be dealing with matters which are in some sense controversial, I shall endeavour to avoid anything that might be described as "squalid bickering." I want to raise the question of the political rights and opportunities of Servicemen in view of the coming Election. I am not, of course, dealing with those aspects of the subject covered by the Prime Minister yesterday in his


very satisfactorily amended statement. I want to deal with one or two other points.
This is not the moment to endeavour to apportion the blame for the way in which this General Election has been rushed, as some people say, if it has been rushed; but I think, at least, that it will be generally agreed that the men and women in the Services overseas have not had very much time, since they finished fighting in Europe, to consider coolly and discuss and argue out amongst themselves the various political issues which will be presented to them at the Election and the programmes of the various parties. I know that I, and many other hon. Members, constantly get letters from constituents and others serving overseas, of which the burden is something like this: "I have never had a vote. I have not the faintest idea what all these political arguments are about. Can you tell me what the Conservative Party stands for, what the Labour Party stands for—"and so on. This is rather a burdensome addition to one's mail bag when it happens so often, but one has to try to give fair and thorough replies.
For this reason I suggested some little time ago, first to the Secretary of State for War and then to the Prime Minister, that rather more should be done than has been done so far to provide the Forces with elementary factual political information of an impartial kind, and, in particular, I suggested that at least one issue of the A.B.C.A. Bulletin should be devoted to an objective statement of the main policies and programmes of the various political parties and schools of thought. The Secretary of State for War replied to the effect that it would be impossible or impracticable to work out such an objective bulletin, and that it would be beyond the wit of man to devise any really objective survey. I was interested to learn the other day that precisely what I suggested has, in fact, been done by the Canadian Government in connection with the Canadian Election which has just been held. I have here in my hand a copy of the official bulletin "Canadian Affairs," which corresponds almost exactly to the "Current Affairs" bulletin issued by the War Office for A.B.C.A. discussion groups. This is a special Dominion election number, and I

am going to read a sentence or two from the editorial foreword:
This supplementary issue of 'Canadian Affairs' has been specially prepared to bring the answers to their election problems to Canadian Service men and women overseas. By arrangement with the Armed Forces, it is being distributed on a very much wider scale than regular issues of 'Canadian Affairs,' so that everyone may have a chance to read it. The booklet and the arrangement of its contents have been made possible by the mutual agreement of the national political parties, whose official statements are printed in the following pages without editorial changes or comment of any kind. The statements were prepared specially for 'Canadian Affairs' by the national offices of the parties concerned.
No-one can vote intelligently in a vacuum. So read, digest, and, above all, vote.
That seems to be an admirable editorial foreword to this pamphlet, which contains outlines of policy by the five main Canadian parties. I cannot imagine why something of the kind could not have been done here. I only wish there were time still for it to be done, but I suppose there is not much hope of that.
When I raised this matter with the Prime Minister, I pointed out to him, in a supplementary question, that Members were getting all those letters of inquiry from the troops, and the Prime Minister seemed to think that that was the best way that it could be done—by these informal contacts and letters, queries and replies—and also, he said, by getting as many newspapers as possible, as quickly as possible, out to the Forces overseas. I do not believe that, whatever newspapers they happen to get, they will get a particularly clear, impartial, informed picture of the issues before the electorate at the coming election, because the newspapers of the various parties are naturally full of the propaganda, perhaps legitimate, perhaps truthful, perhaps not, of their own respective sides, and I am asking for the provision of impartial information for those troops who want it. I do not believe that more than 5 per cent. of the troops who would genuinely like to have such information, and are in need of it, will in fact take the step of writing to their own M. Ps. about it.
That brings me to the second point that I want to raise this evening, and that is a question concerning the Admiralty. I am grateful to the Civil Lord for being so civil as to stay in London and be here this evening. I have just recalled that the


Prime Minister said how admirable and adequate it was that Servicemen should simply write to their Members of Parliament and ask for information about political matters. A few months ago, when I had the privilege of visiting, and taking short trips in, one or two of H.M.'s ships, I found that there was an almost universal impression in those ships, both among officers and ratings, and among commanding officers themselves, that it was actually forbidden for naval personnel to write to their Members of Parliament about anything. When I said that I was sure that that was not so, and that it had been repeatedly established in this House, and stated on behalf of the Government, that they could write letters to their Members of Parliament about political or even about Service matters—adding the proviso, of course, that they should always take up Service grievances through the proper Service channels first and only approach their Member of Parliament if they could not get any satisfaction that way—when I said that, I was told definitely by captains of ships that I was wrong and that it was contrary to the Naval Discipline Act; and that was what they always told their men.
I therefore put one or two Questions and had some correspondence with the then First Lord of the Admiralty about it, and he eventually established quite satisfactorily—and it is on record in Hansard—that of course men in the Navy, as in every other Service, and like every other citizen, have the right to write to their Members of Parliament about anything, although there is always the proviso about Service matters that for the sake of discipline and, very often, speed, they should first approach their own officers. Having established that, it was pointed out to me by constituents and by correspondents in the Navy, that there was an apparent inconsistency between this perfectly proper ruling and the notice which was posted in every ship and naval shore establishment—the notice called Form S.272, which appeared to make it an offence to communicate with Members of Parliament, although it was rather vaguely worded. Therefore, I raised this matter also, and in the Easter Adjournment Debate the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty was good enough to come to the House and say that, after consideration, the First Lord, and their

Lordships, and he, and everybody else had decided that this notice was to be amended forthwith; and he read out the revised wording, which indeed, although it perhaps did not go quite as far as some of us would have liked, did no longer suggest at all that there was any offence involved in a man's writing to his Member of Parliament. The hon. Gentleman concluded his speech by saying:
The hon. Member far Maldon (Mr. Driberg) also asked me whether these changes will be conveyed clearly and in full to those in command of His Majesty's ships and naval shore establishments. I can assure him that this will be done both in regard to the statement by the First Lord, which I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, and also in regard to Poster S.272, which he has brought before the House to-day."—[Official Report, 29th March, 1945; Vol. 409, c. 1626.]
I naturally took that on the hon. Gentleman's word, and assumed that everything would be all right, and that pretty soon it would be generally realised throughout the Navy that there had been, if not a modification of policy, at any rate a clarification of policy. I was, therefore, rather shocked a week or two ago to learn that at one of the most important of naval establishments—the Royal Naval Bar racks at Portsmouth—the revised form of the poster had not been put up at all. This was two months later, and so I asked a Question about it yesterday, and the First Lord of the Admiralty explained that unfortunately the distribution of the poster had been delayed by printing difficulties and that it was now being distributed; he added:
And copies are displayed at the Royal Naval Barracks, Portsmouth."—[Official Report, 13th June, 1945; Vol. 411, c. 1640.]
I am bound once more, as I was on the occasion of the Easter Adjournment, to accept the word of a member of the Government, and I do really hope that this time we shall have this poster properly displayed and the situation clearly explained to commanding officers, so that there will no longer be any risk that men will be misled as to their rights in this important matter. Since putting down the Question which was answered yesterday, I have had a further check made at the Royal Naval Barracks, Portsmouth, and my informant writes as follows:
Have re-checked the 'Complaints Poster' position thoroughly and the position is worse than I reported. In a widespread inspection I saw only three copies of the poster, all of them of the 1932 issue,"—


That is very bad, because I know from my own previous observation that the poster had been revised, before the present revision, since 1932—
including the one in the main police office. Two of them are practically impossible to read, being hung about seven feet from the ground. Judicious inquiry suggested that only about one man out of a hundred actually questioned knew about the new regulation.
He means the revised form of the poster.
There is, in the Royal Naval Barracks, a very large notice board, which most men glance at, which is smothered with obsolete notices. Perhaps it could be suggested that this notice board is the one most suited for the exhibition of the new notice. It is located between 'A' and 'B' blocks.
Perhaps my hon. Friend will be good enough to pass that suggestion on to the commanding officer at the Royal Naval Barracks. This report was made at 16·30 hours on 7th June, so we hope that since then what the First Lord assured us had been done has in fact been done. I hope that this will be done not only at these barracks, but at all other establishments and in all other ships, although with regard to ships in distant waters it may no doubt take a little longer. I cannot help feeling that it would have taken less than two months to print something that their Lordships had really wanted to get out to the Navy urgently, that there was a rather casual and lethargic interest in this matter, and that there was even perhaps a certain lack of good will in regard to speeding this poster, with its important emendation, to the various ships.
The third point that I want to make—I am dealing with one point affecting each Service—concerns the Royal Air Force station at Yatesbury. It was suggested some weeks ago, apparently by some of the airmen stationed there, that it might be a good thing to do precisely the kind of elementary, impartial, educational political work at that station, which is the main theme of my speech to-night, and again I quote from a correspondent. He says:
It was suggested—through the proper channels, by way of the station education officer—that an education committee be set up on, the station, presided over by the station administrative officer, with representatives of the men, to supervise and organise election publicity and information on the camp. The committee was to be run, in fact, on the lines of the already existing welfare

committee. It was further suggested that the committee should arrange matters after the following manner.

(1) Literature of all parties to be placed in the N.A.A.F.I.s and information rooms.
(2) Discussion groups to be arranged in the N.A.A.F.I.s, an officer being present.
(3) Wall newspapers to be set up in the N.A.A.F.I.s giving the latest election in formation and notices of meetings outside the camp.
(4) A special room to be set aside, equipped with a radio, for the purpose of ensuring quiet during the broadcasts taking place after the 9 p.m. News.
(5) Speakers of all parties to be invited to address the men.
(6) A brains trust to be organised, having members of all political shades to answer questions relating to the parties and the General Election.
(7) The Tannoy to be used as an extra publicity agent.
The Station Administrative Officer discussed the matter with Group Headquarters and it was decided (a) the Tannoy may be used to urge the importance of the Election; (b) notices may be displayed in the information room (which is very little used), informing the men of outside meetings. Various reasons were given for refusing the other suggestions. For instance, literature may not be placed in the N.A.A.F.I.s because it was believed that some airman might remove that with which he disagreed (or that with which he agreed, for further perusal); and again that discussion groups must not be organised, because that would mean a discusion of party politics, which is not permissible under K.R.s.
Personally I think it is permissible by King's Regulations. I believe that the discussion of party politics is permitted within camps and stations; I am sure that one of my hon. Friends will correct me if I am wrong. As long as it is not public, I am sure that under King's Regulations, discussion of party politics is permitted. These suggestions were perfectly reasonable and I cannot imagine why they should have been turned down.
There is a lamentable lack of full, complete, and impartial information about politics in the Services. I think it is true to say that a much larger minority of Servicemen than ever before are acutely interested in politics; but they are still a minority, and among the very large number of those who will have to vote in a few weeks' time there is considerable ignorance still prevailing. Now, just at the last moment, they are beginning to wake up, and are anxious to find out how they ought to vote and what all these Parties stand for. I maintain, therefore,


that every possible facility should be afforded them for that purpose. Incidentally, the Prime Minister's statements yesterday and the day before were very welcome, in so far as they enable the men to take part in public political meetings; but I do not see why there should not have been perfectly harmless facilities like those suggested at Yatesbury. By the way, this is the same station which we had a little trouble about once before in this House—before the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) was at the Air Ministry. It is the station whose Commanding Officer banned simultaneously the sale in the camp both of the "Daily Worker" and of "The Times"; that matter was put right immediately by the then Secretary of State for Air. It seemed rather an egregious action.
There are just one or two very brief point that I want to make before I sit down. One is that I think it was rather a good suggestion, in the series of suggestions at that R.A.F. station, that there should be a special radio listening room, because any of us who have been in camps know what it is like to try to listen to any two consecutive words in a barrack room or in a N.A.A.F.I full of men eating, drinking or enjoying themselves. It is quite impossible to listen consecutively to a 20-minute broadcast—much less to a half-hour broadcast like the one we had last night. No doubt part of the answer which my hon. and gallant Friend will feel obliged to give me is that, after all, the radio is ubiquitous and these men have the opportunity of listening to all the speeches made by the various political leaders. I would suggest that the point made in that memorandum is a good one and that special facilities should be provided in camps and on stations for those listening. Another point arising out of that is, of course, that it is very difficult to get any three people who have listened to a broadcast—whether a news bulletin or anything else—ten minutes after it is over, to give a really coherent report on it in which they would all agree with each other. The radio word becomes distorted and garbled more quickly in subsequent conversation than practically any other kind of word, and that is why it is additionally necessary to have these things down in cold print where they can be referred to again.
I should hate to suggest—because I said at the beginning that I would not

be controversial—that there are any foolish old men still around in any of the Parties who cling to the Blimpish idea that Servicemen generally should not be encouraged to think for themselves or to discuss politics. It may be that there are a few foolish old men of that kind, but I certainly cannot believe that any responsible Party would dare to suggest that it does not want its policy argued as fully and critically as possible—because, of course, every Party should presumably feel and believe that its policy and its programme will stand up to argument.
Before I sit down, as this is the valedictory Debate of this Parliament, I should like—if it is not presumptuous in one who has only been a Member for three years—to say that, whatever happens at this coming Election, to me or to any of us, I shall always regard it as the proudest memory and privilege of my life to have served in this House even for that brief time. I would like to thank you, Mr. Speaker, and all the other occupants of the Chair, the Clerks, and the staff of the House, for their unfailing courtesy and tolerance.

6.50 p.m.

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Captain Pilkington): I am sure that those sentences with which the hon. Member closed his speech will find an echo on all sides of the House. I would thank him also, if I may, for his courtesy in informing me earlier about the things on which he was to speak this evening. As he said, on an occasion such as this, which is the last Adjournment Debate of this record Parliament he thought it better to be non-controversial. I think he kept to that intention, and so I do not propose to deliver any of those counterblasts and broadsides which I might have done, had his approach to the problems he mentioned been different.
The hon. Member mentioned two very important subjects and the first was the question of the political rights and opportunities of Servicemen. The burden of his complaint was that Servicemen had not, in fact, had adequate preparation and adequate information to enable them to make up their minds on how to vote at the forthcoming Election. First, we must remember that all serving men will have had, at any rate two months after VE-day and before the Election, in which to take stock of the political situation,


and they have, as the House knows, had twice as long as usual between the announcement of the Election and the actual polling day. Secondly, at no time, I think, have the Services been more politically conscious than they are to-day. That is very important because it means that they are not, as it were, starting from scratch. They already have a great deal of information in their minds. Thirdly, at no time have there been such facilities for the distribution of news as there are at present. The distribution of newspapers, the use of the radio, the use of lectures in this war, far more than in the last, has had the effect of keeping people really up to date and well-informed about current problems.
The hon. Member mentioned that he had had various letters from constituents asking him to set out the different policies of the different parties. I only hope he was very well briefed when he had to set out the Tory programme to any questioner. I think that in itself—the number of queries which have come in from Servicemen—shows how politically alive and aware they are.
The hon. Member's main suggestion to improve the already substantial methods of distributing political information was the use of the A.B.C.A. pamphlets. He had already made this suggestion to various Ministers. As he was told then, it was considered that the existing facilities, which I have already described, were sufficient for accomplishing the end which he has in view. He quoted, to substantiate his argument, the Canadian pamphlet which he had with him. In the short time available, I have not been able to see a copy of that, or to know what went to the production of that document. But I suggest to him that it may well have been felt that the Canadian facilities for the distribution of this political information, were perhaps not quite so easy of implementation, as were the facilities which we have in this country, being nearer the scene of action. In any event, be that as it may, I think that perhaps a more forceful argument against the use of A.B.C.A. for this sort of thing is that the A.B.C.A. pamphlets are not primarily meant for universal distribution among the men. They are meant more as a medium which the officers of a unit can use in the preparation of lectures or in

the starting of debates, and obviously it would be practically impossible for any officer to propound the contents of an A.B.C.A. pamphlet without allowing his own political convictions to peep in. Whatever he said, it seems to me, would be bound to be influenced by his political wisdom if he belonged to one party, and by his political bias if he belonged to another party.
Now I come to the question concerning the Admiralty which has nothing to do with the General Election. That is the poster known as "S272."As the hon. Member said, an assurance was given to him that the existing poster would be replaced by another, carrying the phraseology which was read out in this House. Two or three days ago, he asked my right hon. Friend the First Lord why this poster had not been distributed already. As he was told then, there had been printing difficulties. If it were peace-time, or even if the matter were one of primary urgency, of course it would have gone through quicker, but the fact remains, as I am sure he realises, that printers like everybody else at the present time have an immense amount of work to do and inadequate staff with which to do it. The particular printers in question have been concerned with the resettlement and demobilisation—or rather re-allocation—printing which has to be done. Even so, as my right hon. Friend told him, instructions were issued to the commanders of the various stations as was promised by the Financial Secretary in this House.
The hon. Member, although he was not controversial to-day, permitted himself to suggest at the end of the exchange across the Floor on 13th June, that this was "a calculated bottle-neck." Of course there is nothing in that at all, because, as I am sure the hon. Member realises, there is, after all, very good existing machinery by which complaints can be dealt with, and it is only on those rare occasions, I hope, when that machinery goes wrong that there may be a case for people in the Services writing to then-Members of Parliament. Again, a calculated bottle-neck rather tends to imply that there was the same urgency about this matter as there would be, for instance, in getting the political information out to the Service people, and of course, that is not the case. However, the hon. Member did for a moment rather shake


me when he said that he had had a further letter since he put down the question, saying that this poster was still not displayed, but he kindly told me the date of the letter which was 7th June. According to my information, the first distribution of the posters took place on 10th June. By now ships in this country should be supplied with them, and overseas stations and His Majesty's ships at sea are in process of having them distributed. I hope the hon. Member will feel that I have adequately answered his points, and in the same non-controversial spirit as that in which he opened his remarks.

Mr. Driberg: On a point of Order. Are we to have a reply from the Under-Secretary of State for Air?

7.1 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Quintin Hogg): I was not proposing, subject to the views of the House, to take up any time with a second Government reply in a single Adjournment Debate. I should be happy, of course, to do so if the House really desired to hear a second Government speech—an abnormal state of mind, I think—or I should be willing to communicate privately with the hon. Member, who has quite properly

raised the matter. Personally, I should favour the latter course.

Mr. Driberg: I am prepared to accept the latter course, if the communication is satisfactory.

Mr. Martin: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the poster to which the Civil Lord of the Admiralty referred is going out to the Air Force as well; and, if so, whether it is being distributed to stations abroad?

Mr. Hogg: I do not think that situation arises in relation to the Air Force. So far as I know this is a domestic concern of the Navy, which has adopted a different language and procedure altogether.

Mr. Martin: Is the Air Force getting some kind of information of that sort? I am told that some stations abroad have absolutely nothing.

Mr. Hogg: Judging from my post-bag there has never been any need for that information in the Air Force. They seem fully aware of their right to communicate with their Members of Parliament, perhaps too fully.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Two Minutes past Seven o'Clock.